Per, thank you for your answer! I was indeed looking for something like
this. But by 1897 the term “Austrian school” had already been established
internationally. In the 1897 article Schmoller refers to this fact, because
in the beginning he says “the so-called Austrian school” (p. 1388). In the
text, he opposes the “Austrian school” (of course), but it doesn’t use the
term Austrian in a pejorative meaning. Rather, Schmoller himself uses the
term “the school of Menger” in Austria (p. 1402). (In contrast to what is
claimed by Schulak/Unterkopfler, Menger does not state on p. 1406 that he
wants to explicitly bar Austrians from teaching.)
As to the second quotation in Schulak/Unterkopfler, I couldn’t figure out
what “DZ 12.2.1995” stands for, so I couldn’t look it up. (“DZ” is not
included in the list of abbreviations and it does not reappear in the list
of references.)
Reinhard
--
Dipl.-Verw. Wiss. Reinhard Schumacher
Research Assistant
-----------------------------------------
University of Potsdam
Chair of Economic Policy and International Economics
Prof. Dr. Malcolm H. Dunn
August-Bebel Str. 89
D-14482 Potsdam
-----------------------------------------
Phone: +49-(0)331/977-4523
Fax: +49-(0)331/977 4631
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.uni-potsdam.de/en/intwipo/chair/reinhardschumacher.html
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Bylund, Per
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Question concerning the term "Austrian Economics"
Schmoller is quoted in Schulak & Unterkopfler's The Austrian School of
Economics: A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions calling the
Viennese scholars "Austrians" (what you seem to be looking for). The full
paragraph (S&U, p. 26):
The Gesellschaft der österreichischen Volkswirte (“Society of Economists of
Austria”) played a decisive role in the consolidation of the young Austrian
School. Politicians of every shade were often invited to regularly scheduled
lecture evenings where timely financial, social, and economic–political
affairs
were discussed. In 1897, the exceedingly active society had a total of
232 members (cf. Mitteilungen 1897, p. 308), some of whom also made
important moves towards approaching the German Verein für Socialpolitik.
After holding its annual general meeting in Vienna in 1895, the Verein’s
Austrian membership jumped from around ten to 144—of its total membership
of 489 (cf. Boese 1939, p. 74). This contributed significantly to the
Methodenstreit’s being conducted more rationally. That is not to say,
however,
that there were no further skirmishes. Schmoller spoke disparagingly
of the “Austrian circle of scholars” (cf. DZ 12.2.1995) and, as principal
of the University of Berlin, announced his intention to bar from teaching
all those not following the current of the Historical School, including the
“Austrians” (cf. Schmoller 1897, p. 1406).
The book is available online at
https://www.mises.org/library/austrian-school-economics-history-its-ideas-ambassadors-and-institutions
Per
Per L. Bylund, PhD
Assistant Professor, School of Entrepreneurship
Records-Johnston Professorship of Free Enterprise
Oklahoma State University
[log in to unmask]
(405) 744-4301
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Reinhard Schumacher
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 8:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Question concerning the term "Austrian Economics"
Thank you for your replies so far!
However, my question is not answered yet. To put it more plainly: A claim is
often repeated that the term “Austrian school of economics” has its roots in
an insult brought forward by Schmoller (and the German historical school)
against Menger. The early Austrian themselves adopted this term, deprived it
of its negative connotation and turned the term into having a positive
meaning. This is a nice little story and somehow used as one of the founding
myths surrounding the Austrian school. I tried to verify this claim, but I
couldn’t, because I didn’t find Schmoller using the term “Austrian” in this
sense. So, my question is, is this story is just a myth? Or did Schmoller
really use the term in this sense?
The term “Austrian” is not used in Schmoller’s response to Menger’s
Irrthümer, which Sam brought up.
Mises makes the assertions that “the German professors attached the epithet
“Austrian” to the theories of Menger and his two earliest followers and
continuators [and] they meant it in a pejorative sense.” Yet, Mises does not
give any source for this assertion. As far as I see it, Mises could actually
be the source of the “myth.”
Nicolas, I don't think that Mises’ general argument - that “Austrian” became
pejorative in Prussia in general - does help in this specific case (it just
reflects national resentments, which can still be found today).
Keith and John, thank you for your interesting reply! However, I’m
interested just in the term “Austrian” in the way described above, not in
the question at what point of time could one talk of an Austrian school.
Best wishes,
Reinhard
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:58:16 -0600
Nicolas Cachanosky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> See page 22 of The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of
> Economics by Mises.
>
>
> https://mises.org/system/tdf/Historical%20Setting%20of%20the%20Austria
> n%20School%20of%20Economics_3.pdf?file=1&type=document
>
>
> The term “Austrian” become a pejorative after Austria lost the battle
> of Koniggratz.
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -NC
>
>
> Nicolás
> Cachanosky | Assistant Professor
>
> Department of Economics | School of Business
>
> Metropolitan State University of DenverSound Money Project |
>FellowCampus Box 77, P.O. Box 173362, Denver, CO 80217
>
> phone 303-556-3218 | cell 857-284-6365
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> www.msudenver.edu/economics
>
> www.ncachanosky.com
>
>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:09:55 +0000
>From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Question concerning the term "Austrian Economics"
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Also see Bonar’s article on the subject/term in Palgrave’s Dictionary,
>first edition, in particular his bibliography.
>
>
>From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of K Tribe
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:31 PM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Question concerning the term "Austrian Economics"
>
>
> When Schmoller published his critical review of Menger in 1883 there
>was very little in the way of "Austrian" publication apart from
>Boehm-Bawerk's Rechte und Verhaeltnisse of 1881, which according to my
>own bibliography was his first published work. And as for the
>chronology of the diffusion of "Austrian economists", you can do worse
>than track BB's bibliography, which besides the two-part book on
>capital moves from reviews to summaries to publication in American
>journals by the early 1890s. But very quickly in the second half of
>the 1880s the idea that there was a distinctly "Austrian" approach is
>clear, both among "Austrians" and those outside the Austrian
>territories. Also worth looking at here would be William Smart's
>encounter with "Austrian" economics, since he was one of its major
>promoters in Britain. As with Wieser's article in the first volume of
>the EJ, by 1891 it was accepted that there was a distinctly Austrian
>school. These writers themselves referred to their work in terms of
>"our modern economics" - they saw it as distinctive, circumscribed, and
>modern.
>
>
> The best way to approach this question would be to read through the
>new economics journals of this period - American, French, Dutch, and
>the established German publications.
>
>
> James Bonar, “The Austrian Economists and their View of Value”,
> Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 3 (1888) pp. 1-31.
>
>Friedrich von Wieser, “The Austrian School and the Theory of Value”,
>Economic Journal Vol. 1 (1891) pp. 108-21.
>
>
> Keith Tribe
>
> On 27/04/16 14:44, Reinhard Schumacher wrote:
>
>
> Dear SHOE list,
>
>
> I have a question regarding the origin of the term “Austrian School of
>economics”. It is often claimed that the term “Austrian School of
>economics” was first used by Schmoller during the Methodenstreit as an
>insult against Menger. I tried to verify this claim, but I couldn’t.
>All I found was that Mises was making this assertion at one point
>(without giving any reference to Schmoller) and many others repeating
>it later.
>
>
> Does anyone know whether this claim is accurate and if it were, the
>source of it?
>
>
> (In some German publication, there is a competing claim that the terms
>“Austrian School” and “Austrian Economists” were first used in English
>journal articles in the late 19th century and that the German term
>“Österreichische Schule” originated from a translation from English
>(while in the German speaking world the term “Viennese School” (Wiener
>Schule) was used in the late 19th century).)
>
>
> I'll appreciate any suggestions!
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Reinhard
>
>
> --
>
> Dipl.-Verw. Wiss. Reinhard Schumacher
>
> Research Assistant
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> University of Potsdam
>
> Chair of Economic Policy and International Economics
>
> Prof. Dr. Malcolm H. Dunn
>
> August-Bebel Str. 89
>
> D-14482 Potsdam
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Phone: +49-(0)331/977-4523
>
>Fax: +49-(0)331/977 4631
>
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> Web:
> http://www.uni-potsdam.de/en/intwipo/chair/reinhardschumacher.html
>
>
--
Dipl.-Verw. Wiss. Reinhard Schumacher
Research Assistant
-----------------------------------------
University of Potsdam
Chair of Economic Policy and International Economics Prof. Dr. Malcolm H.
Dunn August-Bebel Str. 89
D-14482 Potsdam
-----------------------------------------
Phone: +49-(0)331/977-4523
Fax: +49-(0)331/977 4631
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.uni-potsdam.de/en/intwipo/chair/reinhardschumacher.html
|
