The archive.

A convincing account of a crisis need not rest on a convincing theory of economic change. In this review of Thomas Wilson’s Fluctuations in Income and Employment, Ludwig Lachmann praises much of the analysis of American fluctuations while challenging the theoretical synthesis behind it. His objections are concrete: raw-material shortages can interrupt expansion, industrial equipment differs in age and productivity, and expectations cannot simply be treated as given. These concerns sharpen his defence of Austrian cycle theory against what he regards as Wilson’s static assumptions. The review culminates in a question that reaches beyond their disagreement: if investment opportunities are exhausted, what explains the human effort through which new ones arise? Readers encounter a compact example of Lachmann testing economic explanation against changing resources and purposeful action.

How can economists measure the gains from technical progress when innovation changes the capital they are measuring? In this 1942 review of Spurgeon Bell’s Productivity, Wages, and National Income, Ludwig Lachmann welcomes evidence on American productivity and income distribution while challenging the accounting used to interpret it. He singles out Bell’s finding that, after 1933, productivity gains accrued to wage earners rather than consumers and profit recipients. His sharper objection concerns comparisons of capital across periods marked by idle capacity, asset write-downs, and machinery replaced before it wears out. This compact review shows why, for Lachmann, empirical detail and theoretical criticism belong together: a study can document technological change yet conceal its effects through the measures it employs.

Why does one price movement leave expectations unchanged while another forces people to rethink the future? In this article, Ludwig Lachmann distinguishes measuring the responsiveness of expectations from explaining it. Against accounts based on fixed psychological sensitivity or a single expected price, he examines the range of outcomes people consider plausible. A movement near its boundary may encourage expectations of reversal; a movement beyond it may undermine the very assumptions on which a forecast rests. His distinctive claim is that expectations arise through interpretation: people diagnose the forces at work before predicting their effects. The article shows why identical numerical changes can carry different economic meanings—and why a narrow range of expectations can both stabilise a market and make its eventual disruption more abrupt.

The formation of expectations is always incidental to the diagnosis of the situation in which we find ourselves; no prognosis without diagnosis.

Dispersed ownership may explain why salaried managers gain power, but it does not identify who actually exercises entrepreneurial judgement. This distinction anchors Ludwig Lachmann’s 1946 review of Robert Aaron Gordon’s Business Leadership in the Large Corporation. Welcoming Gordon’s evidence from American corporations, Lachmann presses him on the boundaries between initiating decisions, approving them, and coordinating an organisation. The return of commanding individuals during corporate crises complicates any simple account of entrepreneurship dissolving into managerial routines. His praise also stops short of endorsing Gordon’s proposed governmental approval of directors: a pointed reference to Nazi German company legislation challenges that remedy. This compact review distinguishes the economic explanation of managerial authority from the unresolved problem of controlling it.

"Separation of ownership and management" tells us nothing about the location of the entrepreneurial function within the managerial hierarchy.