The archive.

A collective title can conceal more than it reveals. In this review of the Festschrift honoring Alfred Amonn, Walter Fröhlich finds little unity among nineteen essays but singles out theoretical contributions worth bringing to American readers’ attention. His strongest interest lies in the conditions under which economic reasoning becomes useful: Morgenstern’s distinction between solving a policy problem and solving it with permissible means, and Haberler’s account of what business-cycle models explain—and leave unresolved. Fröhlich’s selective, sometimes sharp judgements offer a guide to these debates rather than an endorsement of the collection as a whole. The review also raises a concrete bibliographic concern: valuable papers can disappear from scholarly view when listings identify only the volume that contains them.

The claim organizing this survey is that international trade theory is no autonomous doctrine but general price, production, monetary, and welfare theory applied to a world of nations, currencies, and immobile factors. Tracing the line from Hume's price-specie-flow mechanism and Ricardo's comparative costs through Mill and Marshall's reciprocal demand, Haberler shows how opportunity cost and general equilibrium rescued comparative advantage from the wreck of the labour theory of value. He weighs Heckscher-Ohlin factor-price equalization, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, and Leontief's paradox, always separating sharp theorems from empirically reliable ones, and carries the same caution into terms-of-trade measurement, the foreign-trade multiplier, and purchasing-power parity. The classical free-trade case survives as a powerful benchmark — never an unconditional theorem.

There exist only rudiments of truly dynamic analysis in the field of non-monetary trade theory.

A tax textbook can supply facts without teaching readers how to judge them. That distinction drives Walter Froehlich’s 1954 review of William H. Anderson’s Taxation and the American Economy. Froehlich tests the book’s interdisciplinary ambitions against concrete explanatory tasks: distinguishing taxable income from economic profit when discussing who bears a tax, and reconciling court decisions rather than merely placing them side by side. His praise for Anderson’s diagram-assisted account of estate-tax avoidance sharpens the criticism: accessibility need not sacrifice precision. This short review offers a pointed standard for introductory writing in law and economics—whether it gives nonspecialists the conceptual connections needed to reason beyond the information provided.

Christian charity cannot compensate for an unjust economic order—but the Gospel cannot substitute for economic expertise. This tension guides Hans Bayer’s review essay as he weighs Christian social teaching against competitive markets, monopoly, and centralized coercion. Engaging Catholic and Protestant thinkers, Bayer argues that moral renewal and institutional reform must proceed together: an economy should secure the material conditions for personal development, not merely obey the price mechanism. His distinctive move is to seek common ground with democratic socialism while separating its humane aspirations from materialism and totalitarian collectivism. The essay offers a concrete encounter with Christian arguments for structural economic change, including the difficult question of how religious commitments can guide institutions without prescribing their technical design.

The same visible movement might belong to a war dance or a ceremonial reception: observation alone cannot establish what an action means. In this methodological essay, republished here in 1967, Alfred Schütz asks how social science can achieve objectivity when its subject matter is already interpreted by the people it studies. His answer preserves scientific rigor without treating actors’ meanings as dispensable or interpretation as private intuition. Scientific concepts, he argues, reconstruct the everyday types and expectations through which people understand one another. The essay offers a precise way to assess theoretical models: their simplified actors need not reproduce whole persons, but their attributed motives and actions must remain intelligible in everyday terms. Readers can discover why abstraction and fidelity to subjective meaning need not be competing demands.

Whether the non-communist economies would return to multilateral liberal trade or settle into a managed world of controls, quotas, and currency blocs was, in 1954, the question convertibility decided. Haberler first clears the definitional ground, separating full from partial convertibility, resident from nonresident rights, and current from capital transactions, because governments can proclaim liberalization while preserving discrimination through licensing and blocked balances. His normative claim is that convertibility is the monetary form of free trade, letting countries specialize by comparative efficiency instead of matching imports to exports bilaterally. The failed 1947 sterling experiment serves as his warning: it collapsed not because convertibility is unworkable but because inflation and an overvalued pound made it so. Rejecting gold-standard deflation, he favors monetary discipline joined to freely floating rates over the speculation-prone Bretton Woods peg.

It cannot be repeated too often that any form of open or repressed inflation is incompatible with convertibility and stable exchange rates.

What should economics gain from measurement—and what should it refuse to surrender to the promise of exact prediction? In this 1954 review of Jan Tinbergen’s Econometrics, G. L. S. Shackle distinguishes indispensable numerical description from forecasting ambitions whose reliability he questions. His concern is also educational: making advanced econometrics the dominant form of postgraduate research could crowd out historically and philosophically informed inquiry, and students whose gifts are not mathematical. Yet his judgement of Tinbergen’s book is appreciative. Its accessible explanations offer non-specialists a way to understand quantitative methods without becoming practitioners. The review’s interest lies in this combination: Shackle defends statistical knowledge while challenging the institutional authority claimed for predictive modelling.

Can an institution designed to restore international trade become an obstacle to its recovery? In this 1954 article, Wilhelm Röpke challenges the European Payments Union on precisely that ground. He acknowledges its success in clearing payments and easing trade within Europe, but argues that it entrenches exchange controls, turns monetarily disciplined countries into involuntary creditors, and obstructs purchases from the dollar area. Germany’s inability to use its European earnings freely outside Europe makes the problem concrete. From his liberal monetary perspective, regional integration is no substitute for worldwide currency convertibility. The article offers a pointed test of international cooperation: does it remove the restrictions that made it necessary, or acquire an interest in preserving them? Röpke’s proposed creditor-country nucleus gives that critique a practical transitional form.

Its very purpose was to make itself superfluous.

Can consumer cooperatives grow powerful enough to challenge cartels without weakening their own democratic life? In this 1954 article, Hans Bayer answers critics who equate cooperative scale with bureaucracy and economic regimentation. His defense turns on what economic power is used for: the Swedish Luma light-bulb factory, he recounts, welcomed a cartel’s threatened price cuts because cheaper bulbs would serve consumers even if competitors supplied them. Yet growth brings obligations, not automatic justification. Investment must be balanced against immediate savings, and member education and decentralized oversight must keep pace with organizational complexity. Bayer offers a concrete account of the tension between competitive strength and self-government, arguing that freedom for economically weaker consumers may require large institutions rather than small ones.

No purely factual history is possible in any politically relevant sense, Hayek maintains, because citizens judge their institutions through inherited stories about what those institutions have done. Introducing a wider inquiry into capitalism and industrialization, he takes aim at one such story: the legend that the Industrial Revolution impoverished and degraded the working classes. Drawing on Clapham and on concessions later made by the Hammonds, he argues that real wages and living standards generally rose, and that capital accumulation let a vastly larger proletarian population survive at all. Visible urban misery, Corn Law-era Tory propaganda against manufacturers, and socialist historicism from Marx to Sombart and the Webbs together fixed the darker picture as common sense. Hardship, he counters, more often flowed from monopoly, state action, and precapitalist restrictions than from the competitive order itself.

Political opinion and views about historical events ever have been and always must be closely connected.

Twenty-odd centuries of economic reasoning, from Aristotle and the scholastic doctors through Smith, Ricardo, Walras, and Keynes, pass under review in this vast and unfinished history, assembled from Schumpeter's disordered manuscript by his widow Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter. Its governing distinction separates economic analysis, the evolving box of scientific tools, from the surrounding economic thought and political creed. Tracing the filiation of ideas, Schumpeter insists that competent analysis rests on three techniques, history, statistics, and theory, and that every theorist first works from a pre-analytic 'vision' colored by ideology. He crowns Walrasian general equilibrium the summit of theoretical economics, weighs the scholastics' neglected contributions against the British classical tradition he distrusts, and reconceives capital, from the standpoint of analysis, as a set of restrictions.

practically and analytically, a credit theory of money is possibly preferable to a monetary theory of credit.

Technical sophistication can narrow an economist’s understanding as well as sharpen it. In this review of Joseph Schumpeter’s posthumous History of Economic Analysis, later collected as “Schumpeter on the History of Economics,” Hayek asks what historical scholarship contributes to professional judgment. He admires Schumpeter’s command of original sources and willingness to unsettle familiar rankings, giving neglected thinkers their due while questioning the standing of canonical figures. Yet admiration does not erase disagreement: Hayek distinguishes Marx’s historical influence from his analytical achievement and objects to Schumpeter’s contemptuous treatment of nineteenth-century liberalism. This brief review offers a revealing encounter between two economists’ judgments—and a concrete account of why knowing older arguments matters when applying modern technical knowledge.