------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (February 2007)

Vincent Barnett, _A History of Russian Economic Thought_. New York: 
Routledge, 2005. xiv + 172 pp. $135 (cloth), ISBN: 0-415-35264-9.

Reviewed for EH.NET by Natalia A. Makasheva, Department of Economics, 
Moscow State University, and Warren J. Samuels, Department of 
Economics, Michigan State University


Vincent Barnett attempts "to resurrect some of the memories, thoughts 
and experiences of long-neglected Russian economists of both the 
nineteenth and twentieth centuries," "to rekindle and extend interest 
in the West about the history of Russian economic ideas divorced from 
predominantly Marxian or planning-related concerns, to present some 
of the most important elements of these ideas in a clear and unbiased 
fashion, and to reconstruct some feeling of the context in which they 
arose" (p. viii). He thus seeks "to 'bring Russia in from the cold,' 
that is, to reintegrate the history of Russian ideas with other 
European and even some international currents of economic thinking" 
(p. 4).

The passage of time will clarify the extent to which the book is 
successful along those lines and in correcting any stereotypical 
vision of Russian economic thought. Nonetheless, the book provides 
support for those who perceive the history of economic thought to 
follow multi-current streams, not a single universal path of 
development.

Barnett covers, to varying degrees, numerous complicated and 
unsettled methodological, historical and theoretical questions. Some 
questions are beyond the book's scope, but those included form a 
picture of the general context of Russian economic thought and the 
legacy of particular Russian economists.

Barnett covers the period from 1870 to 1940, occasionally extended to 
provide insights into Russian economic thinking before 1870, after 
Stalin, and during the period of the post-soviet transition. His 
procedure is to examine legacies of several prominent economists and 
some important debates on politically and economically significant 
issues. The entire period under consideration is divided based upon 
significant political-economic events, manifest in such chapter 
titles as "Prelude: The Russian Economic Mind before 1870"; "The 
Russian Economic Mind under Tsarism, 1870-1890"; "Socialism and 
Development in Late Tsarism, 1890-1913"; "Economic Theory in Late 
Tsarism, 1890-1913" and "The Russian Economic Mind under Stalinism, 
1929-1940."

As for the period covered, Barnett claims that the first Russian 
translation of Marx's _Capital_ in 1872 and the marginal revolution 
beginning around 1870 were "two events of notable significance for 
the development of Russian economic thought in the last three decades 
of the nineteenth century" (p. 29), but explains their controversial 
significance. In Russia, Marxist ideas gained popularity in the 
debate over the future social and economic organization of the 
country. This was the narodniks' focus of attention from the late 
1860s into the 1890s, initially with Marx and after his death with 
Engels (Perepiska, 1951). Translation of the theoretical _Capital_ 
did not appreciably influence this debate. The very notion of a 
"marginal revolution" has been questioned by some western historians 
of economic thought. In Russia, marginalism was only a marginal 
current. The year 1870 seems appropriate, however, for another 
reason. It was within the period following the commencement of the 
reforms undertaken by Alexander II, which greatly influenced the 
social and economic life of the country. The year 1940 seems to have 
been selected because it was the year just prior to the Great 
Patriotic War, the latter undoubtedly a milestone in the history of 
Russia (Soviet Union), albeit a date of negligible importance for the 
history of Soviet economic thought as such.

Also relevant is the elusive meaning of the adjective "Russian." 
Barnett appropriately touches upon this point, albeit briefly, in the 
Introduction and returns to it in the Conclusion. What is meant by 
"national economics"? The answer is rather clear when we speak about 
schools which can be identified by their scope and method without 
references to the nationality of their adherents, such as Austrian 
economics, for example. However, any attempt to identify Russian 
economic thought as a school (as some present-day economists in 
Russia do) is condemned to fail. A "soft definition," according to 
which Russian economic thought is a singular cohesive entity, might 
be more precisely called "conglomeration." A definition embracing 
"economic thinkers who lived within Russian and/or Soviet borders" 
(p. 138) seems appropriate but has problems. Questions arise in part 
because of territorial changes occurring during the twentieth 
century. The result is that some Russian economists found themselves 
abroad because the Revolution turned some Russian economists into 
???migr???s and others into Soviet economists. In his latest article on 
E.E. Slutsky, Barnett calls him a "Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian 
economist" (Barnett 2005, p. 305). Not mentioned is a well-known 
economist, Boris Brutskus (1874-1938), (who wrote on agrarian 
problems, economic history, planning and market economies) who drew 
considerable attention during Perestroika. While he perhaps should 
have been mentioned, doubts arise as to his unambiguous assignment to 
Russian economic thought. Born in today's Lithuania, he received his 
education in Moscow and Warsaw, worked in St. Petersburg-Petrograd 
(1898-1922), was exiled in 1922, then lived in Berlin and died in 
Jerusalem. This example is not unique.

Barnett presents several useful summaries. One is "Timeline: Key 
Developments in Russian Economics and Statistics," which provides 
parallel lists of Russian ministries of finance and of prominent 
Russian economic writings. Two Appendixes present lists of both the 
first Russian translations of the works of Western economists and of 
Russian and Western economic theorists and their principal 
corresponding contributions. Numerous gaps are shown in the dates of 
birth and death of Russian economists, two of which can be filled, 
the deaths of A. A. Konyus in 1990 and I. Kh. Ozerov in 1942.

Barnett identifies important features of the history of Russian 
economics, including the significant political and social factors in 
its development and, to an extent, the evolution of the economic 
world-outlook of some prominent economists. These render doubtful any 
notion of progress in Russian economics by Western standards. Russian 
scholars widely accept the sequence of narodnik economics, Marxism 
(Russian Marxism, Legal Marxism), bourgeois-liberal economics, 
economic ideas of liberal professors (mix of historical school, 
social economics, etc.). Russian economic thought comprises numerous 
interlaced and "overlapping fibres" (p. 135), or, in Normano's words, 
is akin to "a musical fugue" (Normano 1945, p. ix), namely, a 
sequentially instrumented piece. Still, the influence of major 
currents of Western economic thought induced Russian economists to 
both imitate and creatively adapt them.

The number of Russian economists given a few lines to a few pages 
exceeds thirty; those only mentioned are at least as numerous. Among 
the economists well-known in the West are M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, E.E. 
Slutsky, and N. D. Kondratiev, whose ideas have been for years of 
particular concern to Barnett (Barnett 2004, 1998), as well as V. K. 
Dmitriev. Among the economists less well known in the West are the 
economist-mathematician N.N. Shaposhnikov, the money and banking 
specialist P.P. Migulin, the public finance theorist and historian of 
finance I.Kh. Ozerov, W.S Woytinsky, and many others. Barnett relates 
their professional concerns, the originality of their results, their 
impacts on practice, and their strengths and weaknesses.

No coverage can be exhaustive and any author's choice of names can be 
questioned. Individuals deserving attention might have been included 
in a more extensive book. These include A.A. Isaev (1851-1924), 
author of a popular textbook on political economy in the period also 
known for his _Crises in the Economy_; D.I. Pikhno (1853-1913), whose 
demand and supply approach in _Grounds of Political Economy_ (1890) 
yielded results similar to Alfred Marshall's; Pikhno's pupil, A.D. 
Belimovich, the leader of the Kiev School and professor at several 
foreign universities; and I.I. Yanzhul (1846-1914), academician, 
professor and influential public figure whose name was well known to 
the educated public and whose writings on factory legislation, the 
labor question, customs policy, etc., received wide acceptance.

Barnett's new book provides much objective information about Russian 
economic thinking during its most flourishing historical period and 
valuable insights into the nature of the interlacing ideas and 
contending views of Russian economists. Putting a new perspective on 
the history of Russian economic ideas may contribute to the 
multi-national study of the history of economic thought. It is a 
welcome addition to the scarce English-language literature.

References:

Barnett, V. (2005). "E.E. Slutsky on William Petty: A Short 
Introduction," _Journal of the History of Economic Thought_ 27(3): 
305-307.

Barnett, V. (2004). "E.E. Slutsky: Mathematical Statistician, 
Economist, and Political Economist," _Journal of the History of 
Economic Thought_ 26(1): 5-18.

Barnett, V. (1998). _Kondratiev and the Dynamics of Economic 
Development: Long Cycles and Industrial Growth in Historical 
Context_. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Normano J. F. (1945). _The Spirit of Russian Economics_. New York: John Day.

Perepiska, K. _Marksa i F.Engelss s russkimi politicheskimi 
deyatelyami_ (_Correspondence of K. Marx and F. Engels with Russian 
Political Figures_). Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1951.


Natalia Makasheva is professor of the history of economic thought at 
Moscow State University -- Higher School of Economics; and Head of 
the Economics Department at the Institute of Scientific Information 
on Social Sciences. She and Vincent Barnett, along with Warren J. 
Samuels, co-edited _The Works of Nikolai D. Kondratiev_, four 
volumes, London: Pickering & Chatto, 1998. She has recently published 
"Economic Science in Russia in the Period of Transformation (the late 
1980's-1990's)" (in Russian), _Ekonomicheskie i socialnye problemy 
Rossii_ (_Economic and Social Problems of Russia_). Moscow: INION 
RAN, 2006.

Warren J. Samuels is Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University. 
His most recent book is _The Legal-Economic Nexus_, New York: 
Routledge, 2007.

Copyright (c) 2007 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be 
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to 
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the 
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229). 
Published by EH.Net (February 2007). All EH.Net reviews are archived 
at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW  --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review