3,801 works, 471 books, 3,267 articles, 60 other works, 3 awaiting classification, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
What makes an Italian study of cooperation useful to readers abroad? In this brief review of Filippo Virgilii’s book, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out its account of Italian cooperative law. He commends the broader treatment of cooperation’s forms, origins, and practical significance, but gives particular weight to the legal conditions governing cooperative societies, from their formation to liquidation and taxation. The notice offers a compact example of Schullern’s evaluative priorities: its recommendation rests on breadth, care, and the usefulness of nationally specific legal knowledge, rather than on a critical examination of Virgilii’s conclusions.
Political emancipation could leave the power of creditors intact: this tension gives Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s review of Heinrich Sieveking’s two-volume history of Genoese finance its focus. Schullern highlights how the removal of unpopular food duties, without replacement revenues, strengthened a financial elite even after hereditary rulers lost power. His discussion of the Casa di S. Giorgio follows Sieveking in treating it as an association of state creditors rather than a joint-stock company—a distinction that sharpens the conflict between creditors’ security and public needs. Praising the documentary evidence while questioning the clarity of some chronological exposition, Schullern offers a compact critical appraisal of how debt could transfer revenues, property, and governmental responsibilities into creditors’ hands.
Approval ends with a reservation in Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1900 review of J. C. Kreibig’s account of Austrian currency and coinage. Schullern praises the clarity of a history that traces monetary change from the confusion at Franz Joseph I’s accession, singling out inventories of legally circulating coins in 1848 and 1858 and statistics on subsequent minting. Yet his closing wish—that Kreibig’s optimism prove justified—stops short of endorsing its outlook. This compact notice lets readers distinguish the reviewer’s appreciation of documentary clarity from his more guarded response to a narrative of monetary progress.
Can municipal housing and public ownership of building land relieve the pressures facing the poorest city residents? In this brief 1900 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen identifies these as Jacopo Tivaroni’s preferred remedies, while stressing their dependence on wider social and fiscal reform. Schullern’s approval rests not only on the proposals themselves but on Tivaroni’s use of statistics, candour about Italian housing conditions, and fair treatment of competing views. The review offers a compact account of why urban housing cannot, in Tivaroni’s analysis, be separated from the financial means and legislative responsibilities of public authorities.
A wage tariff is not an earnings record, and an average worker’s budget may conceal more than it explains. These distinctions guide Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s 1900 review of the first volume of the Belgian Office du Travail’s investigation of home industry. He welcomes its common research programme while asking how faithfully its evidence represents workers’ actual circumstances. A Brussels tailoring budget based on a tariff not universally accepted earns his scepticism; cutlery workers’ own income and expense records, though brief, prove more instructive. This short review offers a concrete lesson in evaluating social investigation: comparability matters, but so do differences among workers and the distance between formal arrangements and everyday practice.
Can exempting the smallest property owners be both economically justified and fiscally practicable? In this brief 1900 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen endorses Luigi Nina’s affirmative answer and singles out his examination of tax enforcement against the smallest Italian properties. Schullern’s particular interest is comparative: he sees Nina’s findings as relevant to a radical reform of Austrian land and building taxation that he considers probably soon unavoidable. The notice offers a compact view of what this Austrian reviewer found instructive in Italian practice—the connection between a case for exemption and the actual outcomes of collecting property taxes.
A reliable average can still be worthless: this distinction gives Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review of two British Labour Department reports its methodological edge. Assessing Miss Collet’s domestic-service wage survey, he accepts comparisons between like households but rejects a single average for all female servants and questions the omission of payment in kind. His praise of a pioneering inquiry thus leaves its evidentiary limits intact. Turning to governmental provision for old age, he singles out Denmark’s publicly financed scheme and voices impatience with Austria’s limited progress. The review offers a compact encounter with a critic attentive both to what labour statistics actually measure and to how far legislation provides protection.
Wage theories can be studied as arguments about pay, but also as responses to social conditions. In this brief 1900 review of Romolo Broglio d’Ajano’s Il salario nella teoria e nella pratica, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen endorses the latter approach: he praises the sustained, careful connection between economic circumstances and theoretical change. His approval has a clear limit, however. The book draws predominantly on English evidence and thinkers, leaving other national literatures sparsely represented. Rather than judging individual wage theories, Schullern offers a compact assessment of historical method—showing what he values in a history of economic thought, and where methodological coherence falls short of comprehensive coverage.
What makes a table useful for provincial self-government? In this brief 1900 review of the fifth issue of Styria’s statistical handbook, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen looks beyond the abundance of figures to their classifications, sources, and gaps. Municipal landownership prompts him to ask for information on agrarian communities and their historical ties to communal property. Employment-placement tables earn particular praise for distinguishing jobseekers by family circumstances, occupation, and duration of unemployment; agricultural wage figures require attention to district averages and separately recorded payments in kind. His selective commentary offers a concrete example of critical statistical reading: appreciation of administrative evidence coupled with questions about what its categories capture—and what further inquiry is needed.
An international history of trade unionism must also account for the organizations formed by employers. In this 1900 review of Wilhelm Kulemann’s Die Gewerkschaftsbewegung, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes that expanded field of inquiry while distinguishing documentary achievement from institutional endorsement. He praises Kulemann’s comparative evidence but notes gaps in the material on employers’ organizations directed against workers. His sharpest reservation concerns Austria: compulsory craft associations might help organizational activity without deserving Kulemann’s favorable assessment of their existing form. This brief review offers a concrete encounter with Schullern’s critical standards—breadth of evidence, restrained judgment, and attention to the difference between what an institution might accomplish and how it actually operates.
Commercial rivalry, for Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen, turns not only on prices and goods but also on political power. In this 1900 review of three works on German trade policy, he makes that conviction concrete by arguing that Germany’s export expansion requires naval strength. Yet he also welcomes Richard Ehrenberg’s conception of trade policy as a means of advancing toward a world economy in which it would become unnecessary. The unresolved tension gives these assessments their interest. Schullern’s defence of Austria-Hungary against an unfavourable German account further sharpens his perspective: admiration for German economic achievement does not preclude criticism of its historians or organized interests. Readers encounter a reviewer weighing commercial information while advancing his own claims about national power and economic interdependence.
Can Russia’s economic transformation be understood through models drawn from Western Europe? In this brief joint notice, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes two studies while warning against easy historical analogies. He praises Schulze-Gävernitz’s firsthand inquiry, especially into agrarian relations, and questions Nicolai-on’s North American comparisons without discounting the value of his statistical evidence. Railways, credit, and the displacement of older forms of production give concrete substance to the methodological tension. Schullern’s preference for Schulze-Gävernitz’s purportedly greater objectivity also exposes his own assumptions about an observer’s distance from the society studied. The notice offers a compact encounter with the criteria by which he judges economic knowledge: direct observation, comparative restraint, theoretical standpoint, and usable evidence.