2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Agreement on marginal utility does not settle how income should be taxed. That tension gives concrete force to Böhm-Bawerk’s 1891 review of Dutch, Italian, and German writings on value: economists can share a theoretical foundation yet derive different fiscal rules, especially when changes in utility cannot be measured securely. Writing as a defender of subjective value theory, he judges rival accounts by their capacity to explain economic relationships rather than refine definitions. His criticism is particularly pointed where supply and demand appear as quantities stripped of the intensity of buyers’ and sellers’ valuations. The review lets readers examine both the practical reach and the unresolved difficulties of marginal utility theory, while distinguishing Böhm-Bawerk’s own commitments from the varied positions he assesses.
Erudition does not guarantee objectivity: this distinction shapes Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1892 review of Adolf Jäger’s Die sociale Frage. Jäger reads biblical prophecy through imperial history and examines European social and monetary conditions from a strictly Protestant standpoint. Schullern credits his learning, ingenuity and perseverance while objecting to anti-Catholic polemic and the sacrifice of scholarly objectivity to theological premises. The review offers a compact example of critical discrimination: Schullern neither dismisses the historical detail nor endorses the framework, and finds ideas worth circulating in a work whose design and spirit, he fears, will obstruct its reception.
A statistical yearbook can count a nation’s resources without adequately describing how its people live. In this 1892 review of the Annuario statistico italiano 1889–90, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen judges Italian statistics by their capacity to connect economic measurement with material welfare. He praises Luigi Bodio’s leadership and the yearbook’s explanations of how figures were collected, but reserves judgment on factory-level wage averages even when comparisons with wheat prices illuminate purchasing power. His attention to temporary migration, pellagra mortality, and silk production as a source of rural cash income gives this short review its concrete interest: readers encounter an economist asking which categories and comparisons make social conditions intelligible—and where abundant data still leave questions unanswered.
When a coin changes in value between the signing of a contract and payment, what counts as settling the debt? In this brief 1892 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen commends Conigliani’s historical treatment of that legal problem. He highlights the competing claims of coins’ legal, intrinsic and current values, and reports Conigliani’s conclusion that modern monetary conditions warrant recognition only of legal valuation at the moment of payment. Schullern’s emphasis falls on the historical circumstances behind these doctrines: the review offers a compact glimpse of how he valued the history of economic thought as a means of clarifying conflicting claims over monetary obligations.
Does credit reduce the need for money, or enable transactions whose expansion demands still more cash? This tension anchors Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s favourable 1892 review of Carlo Francesco Ferraris’s Principii di scienza bancaria. Schullern singles out Ferraris’s argument that credit supplements insufficient circulating money rather than simply replacing it. His praise rests on a specific critical standard: precise definitions should clarify economic effects, not merely tidy terminology. Readers can see how that standard shapes his assessment of monetary requirements, consumption credit and price formation. His closing attention to the comparatively neglected writings of Arthur Jehan de Johannis also gives the review a purpose beyond recommendation: bringing Italian research on banking and agricultural credit to a German-reading scholarly audience.
Cheap editions can widen access to economic knowledge—but at what cost to the printed text? In this brief 1892 review of Emanuel Herrmann’s Miniaturbilder aus dem Gebiete der Wirtschaft, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes the inexpensive 1891 edition while regretting its many printing errors. His praise centres on Herrmann’s sharp observation and skill in miniature description, with particular approval for discussions of Thünen’s law, the correspondence card, and luxury. The notice offers a compact example of Schullern’s criteria for popular economic writing: precise observation and engaging exposition that carry knowledge beyond specialist readers.
Could shorter working hours serve employers as well as workers without overturning private property? In this brief 1892 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen examines Emilio Cossa’s argument that they could: spreading employment would turn unemployed workers into purchasers, strengthening domestic demand. Schullern places this defence of reduced hours and state intervention against the resistance he identifies among Italian scholars. His interest is tempered by a precise reservation: Cossa may be too optimistic about the development he anticipates. The review offers a compact encounter with an economic case for shorter hours—and with a sympathetic reviewer who stops short of accepting its confidence in the outcome.
A limit on children’s factory hours meant little if the officials enforcing it depended on factory owners. This gap between legislation and protection anchors Eugen Peter Schwiedland’s 1892 review of G. K. Anton’s history of Prussian factory legislation. Schwiedland values Anton’s careful documentation but questions his favourable judgement of the bureaucracy: administrative initiative coexisted with prolonged delay, sparse inspection, and local resistance. Particularly revealing is the official suspicion that release from factory work would expose children to idleness and moral disorder. Read as a critical assessment rather than a substitute for Anton’s book, the review shows how the same evidence can support different judgements of state action—and why statutory working hours alone cannot measure the achievement of labour protection.
Can scarcity be incorporated into a cost theory of value without unsettling its Ricardian foundations? In this 1892 review of Ghino Valenti’s La teoria del Valore, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen tests that proposal against the claims of subjective value and marginal utility. Valenti treats production costs and scarcity as forms of difficulty in acquiring goods, linking departures from cost-based exchange to unequal distribution. Schullern’s interest lies in the tension between this ambitious explanation and its restricted conception of value as exchange value. He credits Valenti’s concrete analyses, especially of land rent, while withholding assent to the underlying theory. The review shows how a disagreement over value’s definition reaches into judgements about competition, privilege, and the justice of economic rewards.
Economic freedom need not imply unlimited competition or ownership: this tension gives Schullern’s brief review of Ghino Valenti’s study of Romagnosi its interest. Praising Valenti’s recovery of economic ideas scattered across philosophical, legal, and historical writings, Schullern singles out Romagnosi’s treatment of economic order as the foundation of legal order. He sees this connection as pertinent to contemporary efforts to move jurisprudence beyond formalism. His approval is discriminating: he finds little significance in Romagnosi’s resemblances to Menger’s value theory, while drawing attention to limits on property grounded in the owner’s labour and needs. The review offers a compact encounter with Schullern’s priorities as a reader of earlier economics—especially his interest in how liberal principles meet substantive legal and moral constraints.
Can restrictions on landed property protect peasant independence without compromising modern freedom? In this short 1892 review of Giulio Bianchi, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen endorses a reform programme that looks to older forms of tenure for practical remedies to Italy’s agrarian distress. Redistributing uncultivated land, he agrees, is insufficient if inheritance and sale soon dissolve the new smallholdings. His distinctive concern is to separate the usefulness of historically tested institutions from any wholesale return to medieval society. A pointed reservation—Bianchi’s omission of proposed Tyrolean farm registers—adds an Austrian reference to this sympathetic assessment. The review offers a compact argument for protecting cultivators through locally adapted property rules while retaining personal and political liberty.
Can cooperative self-help accommodate public assistance without surrendering its independence? In this 1892 review of Hans Crüger’s comparative study of cooperatives, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen challenges categorical opposition to state aid and limited liability while valuing Crüger’s practical expertise. Austrian experience supplies his test: protection for vulnerable members and temporary support for rural associations may serve cooperation better than strict adherence to principle. He likewise welcomes the cooperative’s promise as a school of solidarity, but asks whether moral progress can endure without material security. The review offers a concrete encounter between cooperative ideals and institutional choices, sharpened by Schullern’s insistence that membership figures alone cannot establish economic significance without knowledge of members’ social composition.