Search results

Menger′s Grundsätze is explored; the Aristotelian background of the discourse is probed, as is the problematic image of Menger sketched in the secondary literature as soon as it is confronted with this Aristotelanism and with the subjective value theory and the motif of time, error and uncertainty. The conflicting elements of this picture are pieced together.

During the last years of his life, the mathematician Karl Menger worked on a biography of his father, the economist and founder of the Austrian School of Economics, Carl Menger. The younger Menger never finished the work. While working in the Menger collections at Duke University’s David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, we discovered draft chapters of the biography, a valuable source of information given that relatively little is known about Carl Menger’s life nearly a hundred years after his death. The unfinished biography covers Carl Menger’s family background and his life through early 1889. In this chapter, the authors discuss the biography and the most valuable new insights it provides into Carl Menger’s life, including Carl Menger’s family, his childhood, his student years, his time working as a journalist and newspaper editor, his early scientific career, and his relationship with Crown Prince Rudolf.

This paper examines William Stanley Jevons’s approach to human “improvement” in comparison with that of Carl Menger. In Jevons’s view, people are relatively static when left to their own devices. Thus, to “attack” the “citadel of poverty” they must be improved by those who know what is “best” for them. Menger’s view of people as planners, by contrast, is one in which people are capable of improving themselves. Jevons was a social reformer who placed great faith in education, and painful training and instruction, broadly defined, as key mechanisms of reform. Less frequently acknowledged but no less important, Menger also foresaw “the improvement of mankind” from within, as consumers came to better understand how best to attain their wants and needs over time.

Considers a Wirkungsgeschichte of Hermann Heinrich Gossen, focusing on the reactions of the three stars of the Marginal Revolution: William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras and Carl Menger. Although Hermann Heinrich Gossen is today known as one of the forerunners of the Marginal Revolution, it was only in 1879 that Jevons mentioned him in the second edition of the Theory of Political Economy, which contributed greatly toward making Gossen’s name known among English‐speaking readers. Later, in 1885, Walras wrote a famous article in the Journal des Economistes, entitled “Un économiste inconnu: Hermann‐Henri Gossen”. Investigates a Wirkungsgeschichte of Gossen, an ignored German mathematical economist.

Outlines the difference between the attitude of Menger and that of Böhm‐Bawerk to Roscher′s economic system. Argues that this difference symbolizes the difference in their theoretical contributions in the field of interest theory. Contrasts Menger′s use of theoretic assumption with Böhm‐Bawerk′s agio theory combined with his experience in practice.

Members of the Austrian school held particular views on capital. In this essay the development of Austrian theorising on capital is assessed and contrasted with what has been presented as the Neoclassical view. So far as this subject is concerned it was Böhm‐Bawerk, among the older members of the Austrian school, who became widely known as the main contributor (partly because some of his work was translated early).

In general, the term “Austrian Economics” has been used both descriptively and normatively. It has either designated a set of ideas about the fundamental nature of economic theory and its logical implications or it has been viewed as a conception of society and the market with certain policy implications concerning the limits to and dangers from government intervention and control.

Analysing the values theories of the nineteenth century, there is a remarkable difference between German and English theories: the idea of subjective value is a very German idea, from the beginning of the nineteenth century, ignored by textbooks of the history of economic thought. The German conception of subjective value is subjective, but not individualistic, and is different from the marginalistic conception of value later on. In the German tradition ‐ Hufeland, Lotz, Rau, Hermann, Knies, Wagner, etc. ‐ the value theory deals with “meaning”. The economic actor is able to choose subjectively, but in the context of a collective meaning. We get some new insights into the very German idea of a social economy.

The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct economic reasoning on entrepreneurship from the perspective of its institutional content, thus underlining the aspects of power relations and leadership, which are related with the organisational and technological dimensions of innovation and coordination as entrepreneurial functions.

In reconstructing the theory of entrepreneurship in a range from classical political economy to current efforts in economic sociology, the paper focuses on an appreciation of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship as a concept that is influenced both by Austrian marginalism and the German historical school.

The paper finds that the research perspective of economic sociology as a means for exploring the institutional foundations of entrepreneurship is of utmost relevance for further efforts in theorising the role of entrepreneurship in economic development.

The paper promotes policy implications, which underline that policies for the support of entrepreneurship need to account for the differentiation of entrepreneurial functions and their actual carriers, reconsidering the economic manifestations of their institutional embeddedness.

The paper establishes innovation and coordination as ideal types of entrepreneurial functions, perceiving them as fundamental concepts in economic reasoning on entrepreneurship in the process of economic development.

Schmoller tried to combine reasoning and economic analysis to give a new foundation to German economic theory in the nineteenth century. Opposing the economic philosophy of Fichte, Schmoller preferred an institutional approach to the extremes of pure market and pure state economy. His ideas on economic welfare as a collective rather than as an individualistic idea are discussed.