Search results

This chapter discusses the evolution of German views on public debt 1850–1920, referring to three strands of secondary literature: (1) German retrospectives on public finance, (2) the historical literature with a public choice perspective, and (3) contributions to public/constitutional law, mainly referring to Lorenz von Stein. The skeptic view of public debt endorsed by authors of the second half of the period is shown to be related to politico-economic issues of state agency combined with new state functions, rather than to the rejection of Dietzel’s Proto-Keynesian macroeconomic reasoning.

We construct an embankment on a historical flow. The intention is to design a durable structure for any country seeking to pull itself out of the current recession.

Thomas Piketty’s classic is subjected to a close and novel scrutiny. The history is downplayed and the nascent macroeconomics fleshed out and extended.

A distinction must be made between rentier and productive interests and credit directed to the latter. Both private and public investments are essential. Socially designed projects must be originated and supported through State Development Banks.

Individual components have long been in existence. Green technology, social funding and the like are increasing in importance. However, they have not been embraced in a simple overarching model.

We offer a rationale for the government bond. Finance is introduced rigorously into the macroeconomic framework. The basis, though, is employment.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

This is an unusual book and a striking phenomenon. It comprises a collection of thirteen essays on the German Historical School of Economics (henceforth GHSE), exclusively written by Japanese contributors who are mainly full professors at leading universities and mostly have already published on various aspects of the GHSE. The editor, Yuichi Shionoya, is well known internationally as one of the most prominent students of Joseph Schumpeter and Max Weber, whose works provide the basis for the editor’s attempt to erect the framework of the rational reconstruction of the GHSE in the opening essay. This holds in particular for economic sociology, which – besides theory, history and statistics – constitutes the fourth discipline in economics, and includes the social institutions relevant to economic behaviour and also political, legal or religious aspects. The investigation of Schumpeter’s conception of economic sociology (see, e.g. Schumpeter, 1954, pp. 20–21) is at the very heart of Shionoya’s second essay (9) in which the author concludes that Schumpeter combined two essential elements of the GHSE, a belief in the unity of social life and the inseparable relationship among its components and a concern for development, with some stimulus by Max Weber’s analysis of comparative-static social systems and Marx’s analysis of the dynamic process of capital accumulation. It is Shionoya’s belief “that Schumpeter should be regarded as one of the successors of the German Historical School because he attempted a rational reconstruction of that school, especially Schmoller’s research program, in terms of economic sociology and made his own contribution from this perspective” (p. 9). Whether and how this statement from the editor’s first essay fully fits with the one from Shionoya’s second essay, that “Schumpeter’s conception of economic sociology intended to integrate history and theory, the antitheses at the Methodenstreit between Gustav von Schmoller and Carl Menger” (p. 139), is left to the reader’s judgement. Characteristically, the contradictions involved can be found in Schumpeter’s own writings. In the very same year, 1926, in which he published the article “Gustav von Schmoller and the Problems of Today,” which forms the key basis for Shionoya’s argument, Schumpeter eliminated the seventh chapter on “The Overall View of the Economy” of the first German edition of The Theory of Economic Development from the second German one and omitted it in all later editions of the book, including the 1934 English translation. The reason was that Schumpeter believed that this chapter with its much broader perspective and its fragment of cultural sociology has sometimes distracted the reader’s attention from pure and “dry” economic reasoning. It had led to a kind of consent which was at the very opposite of his intentions in so far as the seventh chapter was misunderstood as an alternative to economic theory. For that kind of reasoning Schumpeter did not want to provide any ammunition. For Shionoya, on the other hand, Chap. 7 is not a fragment of cultural sociology but a research program for a universal social science that he has specified in an earlier article (Shionoya, 1990) in which he regrets Schumpeter’s decision to omit it.

Emil Sax was an Austrian economist both in origin and theoretical background. He is often cited as one of the founders of modern theoretical public economics. An extensive account of his main ideas is given, along with some of the problems left unresolved in his theory.

In a seeming attempt to legitimate or otherwise dignify social economics (Économie sociale, etc.), “named” economists (Adam Smith, Karl Marx et al.) have been dubbed social economists and/or regarded as having made significant but unrecognised contributions thereto. Conspicuously absent from that roster of celebrities are Léon Walras, économiste social par excellence, et al., who have distinguished themselves in the mainstream but also have done social economy(ics) explicitly, i.e. by that designation. Included in that illustrious et al. list are François Quesnay, J.B. Say, Friedrich von Wieser and Knut Wicksell (inter alios). Their due recognition, as per the present essay, cannot help but measurably further legitimise/dignify social economics.

The purpose of this paper is to review motivational factors driving migration return by assessing both push and pull factors that influence return intentions. The study aims to expand current literature of migration return, and proposes a conceptual framework.

A systematic literature review was conducted to determine the push–pull factors that influence international return migration. The authors did a comprehensive search of electronic databases using relevant key terms.

The findings highlight motivational factors in detail and classify them into three categories: economic, psychological and situational. Most of the literature concerning motives of migration return discussed economic and psychological as the two major factors, but here other motivational factors are presented, which are named as situational factors in this study.

The paper adopts a systematic literature review method to probe into existing literature, inevitably lacking some empirical studies; thus, the results may not be generalizable. Therefore, future research is suggested to test the proposed propositions.

The paper offers compelling propositions, which could be a useful reference for migrants’ repatriation motives. It will shed light on motivational factors beyond economic and physiological factors.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide a comprehensive review of motivational factors of migration return using push–pull theory and propose beyond psychological and economic factors.

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.

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.