Gustav von schmoller and adolph wagner legacy and lessons for civil society and the state

The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences
Series Editors: J. G. Backhaus · G. Chaloupek · H.A. Frambach

Jürgen Backhaus
Günther Chaloupek
Hans A. Frambach Editors

Gustav von
Schmoller and
Adolph Wagner
Legacy and Lessons for
Civil Society and the State


The European Heritage in Economics
and the Social Sciences
Volume 21

Series editor
Jürgen Backhaus
Krupp Chair in Public Finance and Fiscal Sociology
University of Erfurt
Erfurt, Germany
Günther Chaloupek
Austrian Chamber of Labour
Wien, Austria
Hans A. Frambach
Department of Economics
University of Wuppertal
Wuppertal, Germany

The European heritage in economics and the social sciences is largely locked in
languages other than English. Witness such classics as Storch’s Cours d’Economie
Politique, Wicksell’s Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen and Geld, Zins und
Güterpreise or Pareto’s Trattato di Sociologia Generale. Since about 1937, partly
caused by the forced exodus of many scholars from the German language countries
and the international reactions to this event, English has become the undisputed
primary language of economics and the social sciences. For about one generation,
this language shift did not result in a loss of access to the European non-English
sources. However, after foreign language requirements were dropped as entry prerequisites for receiving the PhD at major research universities, the European heritage
in economics and the social sciences has become largely inaccessible to the vast
majority of practicing scholars.
In this series, we hope to publish works that address this problem in a threefold
manner. An aspect of the European heritage in a language other than English should
be critically documented and discussed, reconstructed and assessed from a modern
scientific point of view, and tested with respect to its relevance for contemporary
economic, social, or political discourse.
We welcome submissions that fit this bill in order to make the European heritage
in economics and the social sciences available to the international research
community of scholars in economics and the social sciences.
More information about this series at />

Jürgen Backhaus  •  Günther Chaloupek
Hans A. Frambach
Editors

Gustav von Schmoller
and Adolph Wagner
Legacy and Lessons for Civil Society
and the State

Editors
Jürgen Backhaus
Universität Erfurt
Staatswiss. Fakultät
Erfurt, Thüringen, Germany

Günther Chaloupek (Retired)
Austrian Chamber of Labour
Vienna, Austria

Hans A. Frambach
Department of Economics
University of Wuppertal
Wuppertal, Germany

ISSN 1572-1744    ISSN 2197-5892 (electronic)
The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences
ISBN 978-3-319-78992-7    ISBN 978-3-319-78993-4 (eBook)
/>Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946098
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland


Contents

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1
Ursula Backhaus, Günther Chaloupek, and Hans A. Frambach
 ustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow������    7
G
Karl-Heinz Schmidt
 ustav von Schmoller in the Netherlands 1870–1940.
G
A Forgotten Economist?����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21
Robert W. J. Jansen
Schmoller Research in China and Its Potential��������������������������������������������   41
Gang Li
 ustav Schmoller and Adolph Wagner: The Idea
G
of Social Justice in Health Care����������������������������������������������������������������������   49
Ursula Backhaus
 imely Lessons for the Post-9/11 World
T
from Schmoller and Wagner��������������������������������������������������������������������������   65

Nicholas Wolfgang Balabkins
 agner’s Law, Money and the Theory
W
of Financial Crisis: Adolph Wagner’s Early Viennese Publications������������   77
Günther Chaloupek
 imilarities and Differences in Central Concepts
S
of Social Economy: Adolph Wagner’s State Socialism
and Heinrich Pesch’s Solidarism��������������������������������������������������������������������   93
Hans A. Frambach
 dolph Wagner Revisited: Is Redistribution of Income
A
and Wealth a Public Good?����������������������������������������������������������������������������  107
Andries Nentjes

v


vi

Contents

 agner’s Law, Government Size and Economic Growth:
W
An Empirical Test and Theoretical Explanations
for Italy 1861–2008������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  129
Francesco Forte and Cosimo Magazzino
 mpirical Evidence for “Wagner’s Law of Increasing
E
Government Activity” for Austria������������������������������������������������������������������  153

Reinhard Neck and Johannes Jaenicke
Meinecke’s Sonderweg������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  175
F. L. van Holthoon


Introduction
Ursula Backhaus, Günther Chaloupek, and Hans A. Frambach

The contributions to this volume of The European Heritage in Economics and the
Social Sciences series are dedicated to Gustav Schmoller and Adolph Wagner, perhaps the most eminent representatives of German economic thought in the second
half of the nineteenth century. There are important parallels in their lives and works.
Both came from Southern German states – Schmoller from Württemberg, Wagner
from Bavaria; both spent the major part of their academic career at the University of
Berlin, the academic centre of the Prussian dominated German Reich; as founders
of the Verein für Socialpolitik they were united in their efforts to promote the establishment of encompassing social policy schemes, what earned them the name of
Kathedersozialisten (“Socialists of the Chair”). In some points, Wagner’s concept of
state socialism went beyond what Schmoller had aimed at with his welfare state
model, but both economists held that in principle private ownership of the means of
production was essential for the performance of the economy and for raising
the standard of living of the working class.
Schmoller and Wagner were different from each other in their methodological
approach to economics as a social science. In Max Weber’s characterization,
Schmoller and his followers maintained “that the final goal of any science was to
bring order into its objects by a system of concepts which are derived from the

U. Backhaus (*)
The Institute of the Social Sciences and the State, Bonn, Germany
G. Chaloupek
Austrian Chamber of Labour (retired), Vienna, Austria
e-mail:

H. A. Frambach
Department of Economics, University of Wuppertal,
Wuppertal, Germany
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
J. Backhaus et al. (eds.), Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner,
The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences 21,
/>
1


2

U. Backhaus et al.

observation of empirical regularities, hypotheses and verifications, and thereafter
gradually perfected towards a perfect and therefore deductive theory.” (Weber 1968,
p. 208) Hence, Schmoller laid great emphasis on empirical studies in the field of
economic and social history as a prerequisite for arriving at definite concepts and
models for the analysis of economic and social reality. In pursuit of this approach,
Schmoller and the Historical School became the dominant current of economic
thought in nineteenth century Germany, producing a wealth of detailed historical
studies on a great variety of subjects. Schmoller’s textbook Grundriß was an ambitious attempt to draw a summary of the findings of historical research. Schmoller
also claimed objective validity for normative implications of the results of social
science, provided that the criteria of his methodology are fulfilled. Following this
concept of economic and social science, the “Schmoller program” (Backhaus
1993/94) extended far beyond the sphere of universities in its endeavour to influence
the political process by organizing support from its academic and non-academic
advocates for the promotion of social policy reforms.
If Adolph Wagner was in basic agreement with Schmoller with respect to the

possibility of deriving normative propositions from the results of social science
investigations, with respect to methodology he followed an orientation that was different from Schmoller’s. Therefore, in his writings he represents a current of economic thinking in Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century that did not
follow the dominant trend of historicism. Like other nineteenth century economists,
e.g. Mangoldt or Dietzel, Wagner denied that theoretical propositions and explanations could primarily be derived from detailed historical-empirical investigations.
“Wagner was a systematologist rather than a historical theorist”, whose primary
concern in his main field of research “was a theoretical analysis of the rules of
‘social’ finance and tax policy”. (Priddat 1997, p. 343).
Wagner shared with Schmoller the conviction about the significance of institutions for the economic process, but for him the theoretical point of view was more
important than history. This can be seen from the “law of increasing state expenditure” that still carries his name. As a hypothesis about a long term trend, Wagner
first derived it from theoretical rather than empirical considerations.
If Wagner still enjoys considerable reputation as one of the founders of public
finance, his important contributions to monetary theory have largely fallen into
oblivion – which is all the more regrettable as contributions from nineteenth century
Germany to this area of economic research are rather insignificant, if not infamous
(G.F. Knapp’s “state theory of money”). Much influenced by the writings of Thomas
Tooke, Wagner was a follower of the Banking School, contributing interesting arguments to the debate about endogeneity of money. Even more importantly, his theory
of financial crisis, developed around 1860, is a remarkable anticipation of modern
crisis theories, though largely unnoticed by contemporary economists.
In the last decades, a certain revival of interest in the Historical School has
occurred, which arises from the uneasiness about the development of modern mainstream economics. Especially after the financial crisis of 2008/09 there is an increasing awareness among economists of the relevance of “historical and evolutionary
explanations of the workings of complex processes as economic meltdowns,


Introduction

3

economic policy making, the power of vested interests, the aims of political elites
and the formation of institutions and public opinion”. (Cardoso and Psalidopoulos
2016, p. 14) With many economists searching for a method of economic analysis

not restricted to abstract mathematical models, the writings of Schmoller and other
authors of the Historical School have gained a new topicality with their potential to
provide suggestions for a more comprehensive approach to economic reality.
In the same vein, Wagner’s emphasis on the role of the state as an integral part of
economic theory can contribute to correct the blindness of mainstream economics
towards institutions and power. Above all, “Wagner’s law” can still serve as a fruitful hypothesis for empirical studies of state activities, as two contributions to this
volume convincingly demonstrate.
It has been part of the mission of the Heilbronn Symposia from their very beginning to direct the attention of economists to these neglected currents of economic
thought. (Backhaus 1993, 1993/94, 1997) One hundred years after Schmoller’s and
Wagner’s death in 1917, the contributions to this book take the anniversary as occasion to look into their approach; trace the influence of their ideas in Germany and in
other countries; and explore the relevance of their thought in a global economy.
In the second chapter, Karl-Heinz Schmidt highlights the interdisciplinary
approach by Gustav Schmoller. Schmidt comments on the “Schmoller program”
and Schmoller’s diverse activities at the university and in politics. The contribution
demonstrates that Schmoller’s career-curve which had steeply risen since the end of
the nineteenth century, declined rapidly after Schmoller’s death in 1917. It is a
rather recent phenomenon that a new interest in Schmoller and his program has
emerged, due to his interdisciplinary empirical approach, also under the aspect of
what is called “big data”.
In the third chapter, Robert Jansen investigates Schmoller’s influence during the
turbulent years of high capitalism which lasted from 1870 up to 1940  in the
Netherlands, when the country – like Germany – experienced class and labour conflicts. The essay examines the relevance of Schmoller’s views about labour relations
in Dutch parliamentary debates and economics.
The economist Gang Li (fourth chapter) sees value in the economic-­developmental
aspects of the work of Schmoller. By translating parts of the work of Gustav
Schmoller into the Chinese language, Li wants to make the tradition of German
economic and social thought available to the Chinese scholarly community. In this
chapter, Gang Li describes the current research on Schmoller in China, the obstacles
it is facing, and its potential for future development of the country.
Social justice is a major concern of both, Gustav Schmoller and Adolph Wagner.

The aim of the chapter “Gustav Schmoller and Adolph Wagner: The Idea of Social
Justice in Health Care”  by Ursula Backhaus is to show, how the idea of social justice relates to health care and its institutions at the time of early industrialization.
Schmoller designed and suggested market-based social institutions to address three
basic risks of life: health insurance, cooperative accident insurance, and provisions
in the case of the loss of the breadwinner. Wagner not only foresaw the growing
influence of the state in developed societies over time, but also formulated the conditions under which the state should play a role in the provision and finance of, for
instance, health care.


4

U. Backhaus et al.

What is the impact of terrorism on the structure of state budgets? In the chapter
“Timely Lessons for the Post-9/11 World from Schmoller and Wagner” Nicholas
Balabkins investigates this issue under the aspect of Wagner’s law and Schmoller’s
emphasis on social welfare legislation. In particular, he argues that after 9/11, “a
tectonic event in U.S. history”, protection of the population against terrorism has
become an important function of the state, thus becoming an unforeseen new
driving force for expansion of public expenditure.
Günther Chaloupek deals in the chapter “Wagner’s Law, Money and the Theory
of Financial Crisis: Adolph Wagner’s Early Viennese Publications” with Adolph
Wagner’s publications during his first engagement as professional economist with
the commercial academy in Vienna from 1858 to 1863. During this period Wagner’s
research interests were devoted to state finances and monetary policy. In the book
Die Ordnung des österreichischen Staatshaushaltes (1863) he first formulated the
law which carries his name up to the present. He argues that correct classification of
the various expenditure categories is conditional for a rational decision about financing alternatives, especially taxes versus credit. Wagner’s book Die Geld- und
Credittheorie der Peel’schen Bankakte (1862) is perhaps the most important contribution to monetary theory from nineteenth century Germany. His theory of financial
crisis is a remarkable anticipation of modern crisis theories.

In chapter “Similarities and Differences in Central Concepts of Social Economy:
Adolph Wagner’s State Socialism and Heinrich Pesch’s Solidarism” Hans Frambach
deals with the relationship between Adolph Wagner and Heinrich Pesch SJ (1854–
1926), one of the founders of Catholic social theory. Pesch, who shared Wagner’s
concerns for social justice and for improvement of the living conditions of the working class, took over many ideas from Wagner, including central aspects of the concept of state socialism, and used these in the construction of his own key concept of
solidarism. The article compares common features and differences in the central
concepts of these two outstanding economists.
According to Andries Nentjes (chapter “Adolph Wagner Revisited: Is
Redistribution of Income and Wealth a Public Good?”) Adolph Wagner did break
new grounds in economics by conceiving redistribution of wealth and income as a
provision in the collective need for less economic inequality. In his organic conception of society the government has an identity of its own and makes decisions in the
general interest. The two Swedes Wicksell (1896) and Lindahl (1919) followed
Wagner in the idea that redistribution is a collective good. But in their individualist
Austrian economics approach they construct the government’s decision on redistribution as the outcome of consensus in parliament, attained by delegates that represent citizens with various individual interests. Decades later he Americans Hochman
and Rodgers (1969) defended a theory in which donators that care for other people
voluntarily pay taxes to support those in need. That claim has been widely refuted.
Such transfer programs would fail because of the incentive to free ride. Therefore
redistribution cannot pass for a public good. The whole American discussion has
been blind for the Swedish contribution. Although the work of Wicksell and Lindahl
can be viewed as a rehabilitation of Wagner’s notion that redistribution is a collective good, his attachment to the organic conception of society would have withheld
him from accepting their individualist approach to redistribution.


Introduction

5

This volume includes two empirical investigations of the significance of
“Wagner’s law”. In the  chapter “Adolph Wagner Revisited: Is Redistribution of
Income and Wealth a Public Good?” Francesco Forte and Cosimo Magazzino

present an econometric study for Italy for the period of 1861–2008 (divided into
subperiods) for Wagner’s law of growth of public expenditure. Actual expenditure
growth is compared with “optimal” expenditure growth as defined by maximization
of GDP. The results show that only in one subperiod actual expenditure growth falls
short of the optimum (1861–1914), whereas in all other subperiods growth of actual
expenditure is stronger. In this sense, there are two Wagner laws, as emerging in the
Italian case, which are interpreted by alternative paradigms.
In the second contribution related to Wagner’s law (chapter “Empirical Evidence
for “Wagner’s Law of Increasing Government Activity” for Austria”), Reinhard
Neck and Johannes Jaenicke first discuss problems of specifying and testing it and
report on several tests for Austria, both for the Austrian part of the Habsburg
Monarchy before World War I and the Second Republic of Austria after World War
II. In neither period can they find evidence for Wagner’s law. Instead, the growth in
public expenditures in recent times seems to be driven by a discrepancy between
wages and prices in the public sector as opposed to those in the private sector, as
follows from Baumol’s “Cost Disease” hypothesis.
Did Germany differ from the development of other European nations? This is the
topic of F.L. van Holthoon’s essay on “Meinecke and the German Sonderweg”
(chapter “Meinecke’s Sonderweg”), which traces an indirect influence by von
Schmoller to the Sonderweg.
The papers collected in this volume are the revised contributions to the 30th
Heilbronn Symposion in Economics and the Social Sciences in 2017. On behalf of
the entire Heilbronn group, we would like to thank the city council and the Lord
Mayor of the City of Heilbronn for their continued generous support.

References
Backhaus, J  G (ed) (1993) Gustav Schmoller und die Probleme von heute, Verlag Duncker &
Humblot, Berlin
Backhaus, J  G (ed) (1993/1994) Gustav Schmoller and the Problems of Today, in: History of
Economic Ideas, I/1993, II/1994/1, Roma, Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, pp. 3–25

Backhaus J G (ed) (1997) Essays on Social Security and Taxation, Gustav Schmoller and Adolph
Wagner Reconsidered, Metropolis Verlag, Marburg
Cardoso J L, Psalidopoulos M (eds) (2016) The German Historical School and European Economic
Thought, Routledge, London and New York
Priddat B (1997) National Economic Extension of the Philosophy of Law. In: Backhaus J G (ed)
Essays on Social Security and Taxation, Metropolis Verlag, Marburg
Schmoller G (1901/1904) Grundriß der Allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre, Erster und zweiter
Teil, Verlag Duncker & Humblot, München und Leipzig
Weber M (1968) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. J. Winckelmann, J.C. Mohr
Verlag, Tübingen


Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its
Valuation Today and Tomorrow
Karl-Heinz Schmidt

1 

Introduction

The nineteenth century was a period of peace and wars, but also of increasing
poverty and wealth, of the foundation of national states and of the introduction of
social security systems. In Germany the economic and social development – mainly
during the first half of the century – was determined by lack of investment and innovations. During the second half investment and innovations, yet, were increased
significantly. Though this is just a rough description of the economic development,
the most important determinant factors of economic growth and social change are
sketched herewith. Also, the framework conditions of academic teaching and
research and of the influence of university professors on practical policies can be
identified. An important example in Germany is given by the personality, scientific
works and organizational and political activities of Gustav Schmoller during his

lifetime (1838–1917) (Rieter 2008, p. 323; Brinkmann 1956, pp. 135, 136), who,
can be seen as author and organizer of his own special program, in later comments
called the “Schmoller Program” (Backhaus, J.G., I/1993, II/1994, pp. 4, 5). From
the present-day view it may be concluded, that Schmoller fell into oblivion after the
First World War, but that his works are revisited by a considerable community of
researchers in Germany and on the international level. The concerned movement
may be called “Schmollerism”.
The following paragraphs shall demonstrate the development of Schmoller’s
activities in pursuing his program, and their effects on research, teaching and practical policies in the long run, at present and in the future development of economics.

K.-H. Schmidt (*)
Department of Economics, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
J. Backhaus et al. (eds.), Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner,
The European Heritage in Economics and the Social Sciences 21,
/>
7


8

K.-H. Schmidt

2  B
 iographical Data, “Schmoller’s Program” and the Main
Fields of Research, Teaching and Influence on Politics
Gustav Schmoller was born on June 24, 1838 in Heilbronn (Württemberg). He died
on June 27, 1917 in Bad Harzburg (Lower Saxony). According to a broad social-­
economic approach, it is important to explain the behavior and activities of an individual by references to the history of the family (Rieter and Rodney 2006, p. 143).

Schmoller’s father was a financial administrator for the State of Württemberg;
Schmoller’s mother, daughter of a family of physicians and natural scientists, died,
when her son Gustav was only 8 years of age. During vacations in his grandfather’s
home Gustav learnt about natural sciences and organization of scientific investigations and experiments in social sciences (Backhaus 1993/1994, p. 7; Hansen 1993,
pp. 112–113). During his youth the boy was of weak health. Therefore his father
took care for his son to guide that he got used to regular work, recreation and a
hygienic way of life (Hintze 1928, repr. in: Recktenwald 1965, p. 334). Because of
the son’s weak health and under consideration of the family-tradition, the father
determined Gustav to be educated as a civil servant. Following this objective, the
father employed him prior to the son’s university studies for 1 year as a clerk in his
revenue office in Heilbronn. Gustav learnt there about basic elements of financial
and public law, and he got insights into the way of life in the country and into the
structure of the regional economy and society (Hintze 1928, p. 334).
The further periods of Gustav’s life were shaped by his university studies of history and philosophy in Tübingen, a career in public administration of the Kingdom
of Württemberg and his promotion to a professorship at the university. After studies
at the University of Tübingen and winning a remarkable prize by presenting his dissertation (“The Economic Views Held At the Time of The Reformation”), Schmoller
worked as a statistician at the Statistical Office in Stuttgart. His activities included
the work on an industrial craft census. He also published a critical pamphlet on
protective tariffs in Württemberg and on the positive effects of the tariff policies in
Prussia. Because of these activities he was forced to leave the civil service in
Württemberg, but fortunately he got a position as Associated Professor at the
University of Halle in Prussia. There he was soon promoted to full Professor. Since
then Schmoller’s university career continued successfully (Rieter 2008, p.  323):
1872 appointment at the University of Strassburg, since 1882 professorship in political economy at the University of Berlin. In addition, Schmoller was appointed in
Berlin to the Prussian State Council (1884) and to the Prussian Upper House (1889).
Furthermore, as Jürgen Backhaus pointed out in his related study, Schmoller “…
received an hereditary knighthood on the occasion of his seventieth birthday in 1908
and devoted the last years of his retirement to a complete revision of his monumental “Grundriß der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre” (two volumes, 1923)”.
(Backhaus 1993/1994, p. 8).
This leads us to the “Schmoller Program” and the main fields of the author’s

academic and political activities. Joseph Schumpeter had used the term “program”
first in the title of his valuable study on Schmoller’s academic research and related


Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

9

activities of 1926 (Schumpeter 1926, pp. 1-52), translated and quoted by Jürgen
Backhaus in his introductory chapter to a collection of essays on Gustav Schmoller
(1993/1994). In that article Schumpeter had emphasized two tasks of investigating
a specific situation (Backhaus 1993/1994, p.  5): 1. to complete the collection of
facts and figures of the situation as a precondition for further research, and 2. “… to
put all this information together in a definite order, in order to make it accessible”
(p. 5). But above that, Schumpeter had emphasized that the work on the collected
material has to be continued and that new methods would have to be developed. He
concluded: “Schmoller has actually worked his way through all the stages of his
program, and therein lies his greatness” (Backhaus 1993/1994, p. 5). According to
Backhaus’ translated quotations, Schumpeter completed his definition of the
Schmoller Program by a different characterization. Schumpeter emphasized, that the
apriori-framework for investigation “… is further refined in a continuing interplay of
subject matter and mental process. That this program could once be regarded as specific to a particular school is evidence for the importance of the task Schmoller confronted” (Quoted from Backhaus 1993/1994, p. 5). Moreover, Backhaus wrote that
Schmoller had recognized, that at least three steps were necessary to fulfill his program: “the formation of a state executive power willing to launch policies of social
reform”, “… the reform of the universities”, and the organization of institutions to
influence political options and legislative proposals formulated by these institutions,
as it happened in the “Verein für Socialpolitik” (Backhaus 1993/1994, p. 19).
The program obviously was the framework and basis of Schmoller’s longterm
scientific and political activities.

3  Studies on Schmoller’s Works

3.1  Memorial Articles of 1917 and After
In order to demonstrate Schmoller’s public reputation in academic, social and political life, some examples of statements by academic colleagues, friends or critical
authors around 1917, the year of Schmoller’s end of life, may be taken as adequate
information.
In 1917 already, Hermann Schumacher, former student and later successor of
Gustav Schmoller as editor of the journal “Schmollers Jahrbuch”, published a
memorial statement in another journal. To that article Arthur Spiethoff, former
research assistant at Schmoller’s university-chair, referred in his memorial article on
“Gustav v. Schmoller”, published in “Schmollers Jahrbuch” 1918. Spiethoff’s article described Schmoller’s personality and academic works by a summarizing comment (Spiethoff 1918, pp. 11–30). Some of Spiethoff’s statements about Schmoller’s
character and activities point out the reputation of Schmoller around 1917 and the
basis of the critical comments delivered earlier and later by other authors.
Spiethoff emphasized mainly three qualifications of Gustav Schmoller: (1) In a
rare way Schmoller has amplified the scientific horizon of economics (p.  11).


10

K.-H. Schmidt

(2) Schmoller’s activities as academic teacher and expert of social policy are not
less important than his impact in research (p. 16). (3) Schmoller’s personality is “…
rich and fully structured” (“reich und vollgegliedert”) (p. 20), in Spiethoff’s view
not determined from outside, though his turn to economics and to an academic
career seem to be included by external relations (p. 21). Spiethoff concluded, that
without the former experience of practical work in the Statistical Office, which was
supervised by his brother-in-law Gustav Rümelin, secondly without the intensive
public criticism of his earlier study (1862) on a Prussian-French trade contract and
against the government of Württemberg, and thirdly without the offer of a professorship at the University of Halle – prior to the procedure of “Habilitation” – Schmoller
probably would not have entered into an academic career in economic science. To
quote Spiethoff’s original text.

Without the tradition of the paternal family, the necessity of study for bread and the connection with Gustav Rümelin Schmoller probably would not have entered the field of economics, but he would have stayed with history or philosophy (p. 21) (transl. K.-H. Schmidt).1

In very clear words Spiethoff also summarized Schmoller’s valuable qualifications as author and lecturer, and his outstanding energy to work intensively and
successfully.
Schmoller‘s working power was breath-taking. Work was the passion of his life (p.  27)
(transl. Sch.).2

Finally Spiethoff emphasized, that German economic science of the preceding
decades could not be imagined without Gustav Schmoller.3
Concerning the future development of economic science Spiethoff added, that
there are many aspects of Schmoller’s work which give room for different points of
view, and that no single person will be able to continue this author’s work. Therefore
Schmoller’s influence on the long-term development of the concerned field of science would be felt for a considerable time-period.4
The author of this comment, Arthur Spiethoff, of course, could not yet recognize
the future development of economics in the Anglo-Saxon countries and its impact in
the “foreseeable future”.
Even before Arthur Spiethoff’s respectful appreciation, F.  Lifschitz had commented on Schmoller’s work from a totally different point of view. In a broad study
on “The Historical School of Economics” Lifschitz, University of Bern, in 1914
voiced thorough criticism of the school’s main authors  – F.  List, W.  Roscher,
1
 “Ohne die Überlieferung der väterlichen Familie, die Notwendigkeit des Brotstudiums und die
Verbindung mit Gustav Rümelin wäre Schmoller wohl nicht zur Volkswirtschaftslehre gekommen,
sondern bei der Geschichte oder Philosophie geblieben” (p. 21).
2
 “Schmollers Arbeitsenergie war für den bloßen Zuschauer atemberaubend. Arbeit war die
Leidenschaft seines Lebens” (p. 27).
3
 “Die deutsche Volkswirtschaftslehre der letzten Jahrzehnte ist ohne Gustav Schmoller nicht zu
denken” (p. 29).
4

 “Deshalb ist sein Einfluss auf die Entwicklung unserer Wissenschaft ein vielfältiger gewesen und
wird es für eine absehbare Zukunft bleiben” (p. 30).


Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

11

B.  Hildebrand, K.  Knies and G.  Schmoller. To concentrate on the evaluation of
Schmoller in the related chapter, and to demonstrate how differently the scientific
work of Schmoller was evaluated  – earlier than 1917  – some of Lifschitz’ arguments against Schmoller’s personality and works should be considered (Lifschitz
1914, pp. 199–253).
Lifschitz concentrated his critical comments on Schmoller’s methodology.
According to Lifschitz’ view Schmoller did not explain the definition of “statistical
laws” and of an “economic phenomenon” (p.  250). Also, the term “Historical
Concept and Method” was not defined. Even the term “Historical” would not be
clearly interpreted (p. 253). Moreover, Lifschitz referred to Bernhard Harms (1913),
who had complained, that the Historical School had not presented any studies in
clear theoretical concepts (Harms 1913; Lifschitz 1914, p. 253).
But it seems more relevant to refer again to Schumpeter’s evaluation of Gustav
Schmoller. Therefore the article of 1926 is considered again. We refer to “Schmoller’s
Program” and follow Schumpeter’s short-cut definition:
“To approach to the material with a minimum of theoretical Apriori, then trying to understand the contextual relations, also to enlarge the Apriori for the future and to work on new
concepts, which serve as (provisionally) available instruments in relation to additional
material and so on; in continuing reciprocal interaction between material and theoretical
comprehension … (Thus) the same program means: to understand history by means of history” (transl. Sch.; Orig.: Schumpeter, J., 1926, pp. 45, 46).5

Schumpeter’s statement, yet, could not avoid further debates about the relations
between scholars of history and of economic theory. Economic theory became dominant between 1917/1926 and 2017, though new research projects were carried out
in order to bring economic theory and history into a new balance. The impact could

be recognized since the late twentieth century in terms of “New Economic History”
and “Historical economics”.

3.2  S
 tudies on Schmoller’s Works Published Around 1988
and After
The contrast between Schmoller’s reputation in academic research, teaching and
practical policies at the beginning of the 20th and of the twenty-first century could
not be underestimated. To quote Jürgen Backhaus again: “In his time, Schmoller
was one of the most respected professional economists in the world …” (Backhaus
1993/1994, p. 3). Actually, about one hundred years after his death, Schmoller is
“… widely ignored by professional economists today” (p. 3).
 “Mit einer Minimalbelastung an Apriori an das Material herantreten, damit Zusammenhänge zu
erfassen suchen, dabei das Apriori für die Zukunft vermehren und neue Auffassungsweisen erarbeiten, die weiterem Material gegenüber als (provisorisch) vorhandenes Rüstzeug dienen und so
weiter in steter Wechselwirkung zwischen Material und gedanklicher Verarbeitung … (So) heißt
dasselbe Programm: Begreifen der Geschichte aus der Geschichte.” (Schumpeter 1926, pp. 45, 46).

5


12

K.-H. Schmidt

Earlier than Backhaus, another author, Jürgen von Kempski, mentioned, that
Schmoller “today” (1964) is seen as a “dead dog”, like Hegel earlier at Schmoller’s
time. But von Kempski presumed, that history probably will bring about corrections
of such a verdict (von Kempski 1964, p. 200).
Nearly parallel to von Kempski, Erwin von Beckerath found it remarkable, that
Schmoller’s personality, apart from the acknowledgement of the academic field,

was attractive for many famous representatives of different academic disciplines,
esp. sociology, philosophy and history, while “today” the memory for Schmoller is
covered by shadows (“umschattet”) (von Beckerath 1962a, b, p. 68).
Instead, von Beckerath discussed Schmoller’s positive effects on economic and
social sciences in diverse articles (von Beckerath 1962a, p. 203 ff). In his above
mentioned contribution he emphasized the former controversy about inductive and deductive methods and hostile attitudes towardsc economic theory
(“Theoriefeindlichkeit”) (von Beckerath 1962b, p. 69). Von Beckerath emphasized,
that Schmoller always saw that thinking necessarily proceeds by making simplified
assumptions.
Schmoller was always convinced that thinking under simplified assumptions is necessary,
including thinking in terms of an ‘imaginative picture’, the definition of terms and the comprehensible dissection: the ‘deduction based on given truth, on established sentences’(transl.
Sch.; Orig.: Schumpeter, J., 1926, p. 69).6

These statements permit us to conclude that Schmoller was always prepared to
apply – as first leg – the analytical opportunities of economic theory in order to put
adequate questions; but he also needed  – as a second leg  – the investigation of
empirical data. He was convinced that both legs were necessary in order to demonstrate the reality with the richness of forms (“Reichtum an Formen”) (p. 69).
Another article written by Erwin von Beckerath concerned the development of
German public fincance. It was published (1938) on behalf of the celebration of
100 years since Schmoller’s birth. In this article the author tried to explain Schmoller’s
position in the field of public finance and to demonstrate the basic results of
Schmoller’s studies in the history of public finance. In his broader essay on “theory
and practice of the German tax-reform” Schmoller had pointed out the aims of public finance being directed to social policy. He had emphasized “more justice, more
taxation of wealth and less tax-burden on low income groups of the population”. Von
Beckerath also mentioned, that Schmoller and Adolf Wagner had followed similar
objectives concerning the future public finance, but their views differed with respect
to the ways and means to realize them (von Beckerath (1962a, p. 206).
Most of the problems and views, which Schmoller expressed in his articles, have
been revisited mainly in studies and articles which were published around 1988 and
after – in Germany and on the international level. Some examples should be mentioned into relation to Schmoller’s program.

6
 
“Schmoller hat das Denken unter vereinfachten Annahmen, im “gedachten Bilde”, die
Begriffsbildung und begriffliche Zergliederung: das “Deduzieren aus gegebenen Wahrheiten, aus
feststehenden Sätzen”… stets für unerlässlich gehalten” (p. 69).


Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

13

The first example of studies on Schmoller’s works published 1988 is a book
written by Nicholas W. Balabkins: “Not by theory alone …”. The same author contributed also 1988 an article on “Gustav Schmoller and the Emergence of Welfare
Capitalism”. It was published in the collection of “Essays on Gustav Schmoller”,
edited by Jürgen G. Backhaus 1993/1994. Another Balabkins-essay was published
1993  in an additional book edited by Jürgen G.  Backhaus, entitled: “Gustav von
Schmoller und die Probleme von heute”. The essay by N. Balabkins broadens the
perspective of Schmoller’s methodological approach by demonstrating the relations
between Schmoller and the genealogical tree of national-economic science. The
subtitle refers again to Balabkins’ above mentioned book, but here in German: “Mit
der Theorie allein kommt man nicht aus”. All three contributions of the same author
aimed at the integration of Schmoller’s works and the work of the German Historical
School into the long term development of economic sciences. According to
Balabkins, Gustav Schmoller was the real founder of the German Association for
Social Policy (Verein für Socialpolitik) in 1872, focused on the foundations of
social security legislation. The politics of Chancellor Bismarck has put the related
program and institutions into practice. Therefore Balabkins concluded: “According
to my view Gustav Schmoller was in fact the father of the welfare state” (Balabkins
1993a, p. 25). This view was consolidated by pointing out the preparation and performance of social reforms. Balabkins concluded: “Schmoller and his friends were

taking the first modern steps towards the welfare state” (translated from German)
(p. 31). Moreover, Balabkins argued, that Schmoller also pursued the integration of
economic, social and historical phenomena, for example “… when discussing the
law of demand and supply, (Schmoller) still insisted that the idea of ‘circular causation’ is at work and that a monocausal explanation of price-quantity relations is not
quite proper” (Balabkins 1988, p. 65).
Schmoller’s interest in building a welfare state – at his time the introduction of a
social-security-system  – is based on his thinking in terms of justice. There are a
variety of articles and related chapters in his books, which concern the problems and
the impact of economic and social justice in the society. It seems, that “justice” is
the most important concern in political economy, not only at Schmoller’s time. In
1988 Manfred Prisching contributed a related article entitled: “Schmoller’s Theory
of Society” (Backhaus, J.G. I/1993, II/1994/1, p. 117–152).

4  R
 ise and Decline of Schmoller’s Influence on Economics,
and the Impact of New Interest and ‘“Big Data”
on the Future Development of “Schmollerism”
Nearly every list of references to a survey-article on Gustav Schmoller demonstrates
the scientific rise of the young research-assistant in Württemberg along a steep
career-ladder up to the status of an internationally well-known and – in Germany –
politically influential university-professor, author and organizer of academic institutions during the last decades of the nineteenth century and the beginnings of the


14

K.-H. Schmidt

twentieth century (Rieter 2008, p.  323; Winkel 1989, pp.  97–107). The list of
Schmoller’s publications including important books and famous articles starts with
his dissertation (“Die nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der

Reformation”, 1860). The second publication, (“Der französische Handelsvertrag
und seine Gegner”, 1862), caused a heavy dispute on political concepts and on
opportunities of Schmoller’s academic career. The consequence was, that the author
applied for a professorship in Halle, where his subsequent book, a study on the history of small manufacturing firms at the nineteenth century, was published (1870).
Since then the number of publications increased steadily, and the objectives and
titles became more differentiated, including topics from history, economics, political economy, and from social and cultural sciences.
Schmoller’s great work of two volumes, the “Grundriß der allgemeinen
Volkswirtschaftslehre” (last edition 1923), is registered as well as Schmoller’s outstanding academic, political and social publications. They sustained his impressive
reputation reflected also by a long list of contributions to scientific journals and
memorial articles. Some of the essays in honor of Gustav Schmoller were mentioned above, for example the essays by Spiethoff (1918) and Schumpeter (1926).
Other later articles written by authors with expertise on Schmoller’s works and
activities also should be considered:
–– Karl Brandt (1988) emphasized, that Gustav Schmoller was one of the most
well-known authors of national economics, spiritual leader of the younger historical school and organizer of a group of scholars and colleagues who followed
his way of thinking; furthermore, that Schmoller succeeded to perform the
breakthrough of historicism in economic and social sciences (Brandt 1988, col.
1056,1057). But on the whole, Brandt evaluated Schmoller’s scientific reputation
to be contested: representative of empiricism versus organizer of blocking the
influence of neoclassical thinking on economic-historical research and publications. As positive results Brandt emphasized Schmoller’s contributions to institutional economics, comparative economic systems, structural analyses,
socio-economic research and historical researching (Brandt 1988, col. 1058).
–– Carl Brinkmann (1956) earlier had confirmed, that Schmoller’s “Grundriß” demonstrated the author’s understanding of the empirical economy and of teaching
economics.7 Brinkmann concluded, that the „Grundriß“should be taken not only
as a monument, which summarizes a life-long work, but also as a first attempt of
universal comparisons of values and value-systems (p. 136).
–– Additional summarizing articles on Gustav Schmoller are contained in international reference-books like “The New Palgrave”. They also emphasize
Schmoller’s methodological, historical, socio-economic and political-economic
studies. Together with his activities concerning academic teaching and the organization of institutions and political contacts the publications were effective as
backbones of Schmoller’s status in the development of the historical approach of
7
 “… Verständnis von Wirtschaftswirklichkeit und Wirtschaftslehren in ihrer Relativität aber auch

in ihrem ewigen Zusammenhang …” (1956, p. 136).


Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

15

economics. On the other side, warnings could already be recognized soon after
the end of the First World War, that attempts were made to develop new
approaches of economic theory. For example Georg von Below (1924) designed
Schmoller as the most eagerly researching and experienced representative of the
Historical School. But methodological deficits and lacks of his terminology
should not be left aside (Below 1924, p. 318).
–– In the same volume of the journal (Schmollers Jahrbuch) we also find an article
by Edgar Salin on Schmoller’s status in the history of national-economics (Salin
1924, pp. 307–314). Salin concluded, that Schmoller’s rich personality, mentality, knowledge and broad view remain exemplary, but Schmoller’s work as a
whole should be valuated neither as historical painting nor as theoretical
building.8
Herewith the question arises, why Schmoller’s influence on economic sciences
declined after the First World War. Different authors have tried to find adequate and
solid answers. It seems necessary to turn to some of the concerned authors., Karl
Heinrich Kaufhold, a scholar of economic history and history of economic thought,
published several articles, related to Gustav Schmoller, in the late twentieth century.
In one of these essays Kaufhold tried to identify the causes of Schmoller’s declining
influence on economic sciences during the 1920’s and the subsequent decades. The
author first of all mentioned the widespread acceptance of neoclassical and
Keynesian theories at that time and even more intensively after the Second World
War (Kaufhold 1989, p. 104). But Kaufhold presumed that Schmoller would not
have accepted those theories. Therefore the next question should be, why neoclassics and Keynesianism were discussed in Germany, given the availability of the
realistic concepts of the Younger Historical School. Kaufhold presumed that

Schmoller and his adherents had not developed their theoretical approach far
enough, but that the available economic theories did not satisfy Schmoller’s own
demand for a reliable theoretical approach at their research. In the author’s words:
“It seems, that the available theories did not satisfy Schmoller’s demand for theories“(transl.
Sch.; Orig. Kaufhold, K.H., 1989, p. 105).9

In any case, it should be a reliable conclusion, that Schmoller „… was not excluding deduction from economic reasoning “(Schefold 1987, p. 257). In consequence,
he turned to an interdisciplinary approach including “… the psychological, sociological and philosophical aspects of the problems. Schmoller tried to establish a
“solid empirical foundation” through detailed and monographic historical research;
formation of economic theory should “… be based on the knowledge of sufficient
historical facts and material” (p. 257). But though the results of Schmoller’s historical studies were acknowledged as very important, Schefold concluded, “… that
8
 (Schmollers Werk) … “mangelt … jene letzte Vollendung, die einen Forscher, über seine zeitliche
Stellung hinaus, für alle Zukunft und vor der Geschichte in den Rang der Großen, der Bahnbrecher,
der Gestalter und der Vollender der Wissenschaft erhebt” (Salin 1924, p. 313).
9
 “Es scheint also, die vorhandenen Theorien hätten den Ansprüchen nicht genügt, die Schmoller
an sie stellte” (Kaufhold 1989, p. 105).


16

K.-H. Schmidt

Schmoller’s influence on the development of the economic sciences in Germany
was rather unfortunate: it contributed to the neglect of economic theory in Germany
for a full half century” (p. 257).
Bertram Schefold also pointed out that it was Schmoller’s intention “to free
political economy from false abstraction” (p.  257). This objective may be interpreted as a bridge to the actual discussion on the impact of new interests and of “Big
Data” on the relation between empirical data and theoretical modelling in economic

sciences. Gustav Schmoller had recommended to walk on “two legs”: inductive and
deductive methods.
Turning to new interests in comments on Gustav Schmoller and the Younger
Historical School some articles of the first or second decade of the twenty-first century should be considered. The authors Heinz Rieter and Joachim Zweynert discussed Gustav Schmoller’s work in relation to forms and effects of “Globalisation”
(Rieter and Zweynert 2006, pp. 225–250). Second, Rieter’s article on Schmoller’s
childhood and youth in Heilbronn contains interesting details on the historical and
social background of the later author (Rieter 2006, pp.  141–143). Furthermore,
Rieter published an informative article in German concerning Schmoller’s memories of his youth in Heilbronn (Rieter 2008, pp. 323–332). These articles demonstrate that new interests in Schmoller’s personality, methodology, scientific works
and historical framework conditions have come to the fore. This might suggest that
the phase of decline and oblivion of Schmoller’s works has come to an end, even
that a new wave of Schmoller-interests may be coming up. In Japan new interests in
Schmoller and the German Historical School are documented in articles and books
(Shionoya 2005).
In their broadly based paper on the relations of Schmoller’s scientific work and
the process of “Globalisation” Rieter and Zweynert (2006) “… intend to show that
one reasonable interpretation of Gustav Schmoller’s economic thought is to see it as
a reaction to the challenges of globalization” (Rieter and Zweynert 2006, p. 227).
The authors identify Schmoller’s basic methodological position as being characterized by the integration of economic affairs and their political, social and cultural
context. The authors interpret this process as “… basically an answer to the
­differentiation process caused by the increasing inclusion of the German economy
into … the Weltwirtschaft “(p. 227). In addition, Rieter and Zweynert emphasize
“… Schmoller’s main concern that too fast a transformation of social relations
would endanger social cohesion. This is the main reason why he directed his attention mainly to the interplay between state and economy and demanded to give the
national interests of the country priority over its relation to the international community” (p. 227). The authors, yet, do not want to identify Schmoller as an opponent
of globalization, but to point out Schmoller’s main problem: the relations of
“Progress and Vergesellschaftung”, in Schmoller’s view being one and the same (as
the authors see it) (p. 228), but with “… more emphasis on the moment of development, the process in Vergesellschaftung” (p. 228, footnote 7). Rieter and Zweynert
furthermore add that in spite of being critical of the Younger Historical School and
Gustav Schmoller, they expose their statement, “… that his broader vision of economic affairs enabled him to see and to analyze problems caused by globalization

Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

17

which today’s mainstream economists with their “tunnel vision” of quantifiable
parameters are sometimes blind to” (p. 228). It should be added, yet, that Schmoller’s
“broader vision” was mainly orientated to the problems of justice, especially of the
distribution of income and wealth. In order to solve these problems, he demanded a
strong national state, at his time in Germany based on an enlightened monarchy. But
Schmoller also emphasized the problems of development, again not only in economic terms, but also in terms of economic and social differentiation and re-­
integration. Concerning Schmollers’ time, especially at the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, Rieter and Zweynert conclude: “Schmoller saw the main task of
his time and place in integrating society at the stage of national economy that
Germany had only just reached with the unification of 1871” (p. 235). For further
interpretation of Schmoller’s view, it might be worthwhile to consider what the
authors quote from Schmoller what they call “… his theory of Vergesellschaftung:
“What I have in mind, is the connection between economic life and the essential,
controlling organs of social and political life, – the dependence of the main economic institutions of any period upon the nature of the political body or bodies most
important at the time” (quoted from Schmoller, G., 1897, translated, in: Rieter, H.
and Zweynert, J., 2006, p. 235).
To conclude, the main important problems are in Schmoller’s view the economic
progress and the social integration. In order to solve both problems economics and
social sciences have to be applied for analysis and for planning adequate measures
of related policies.
The two articles by Heinz Rieter on Schmoller’s last, autobiographical essay
(2006 and 2008) contain interesting information about the individual motives, activitites, social framework conditions and phases of Schmoller’s private life and professional career. Later authors will be grateful to have the related publications at
their disposal.
The same positive evaluation may be proclaimed concerning Yuichi Shionoya’s
book on “The Soul of the German Historical School”. Though it is focused on methodological problems, it demonstrates the fundamental level of the scientific works

of Schmoller, Weber and Schumpeter, and simultaneously it delivers more insight
into the scientific concepts of the authors (Shionoya 2005).
Other authors of recent contributions to the debate on methological problems call
for more investigations based on specified detailed microeconomic studies, for
example quantifying the economic actions of every household, every firm etc. in a
city. By reviews and comments on the whole set of data reliable statements for the
macro-group as objective of the study should be possible. Some related articles may
be mentioned. The main idea seems to be as follows: If “Big Data” means the
immense quantity of structured empirical data, which are available every day, everywhere and related to every socio-economic activity, a keen vision may be proclaimed: to describe the structure and development of the total network of activities
by long term series of interrelated variables based on the collected empirical data.
They are expected to describe and to explain the real world by themselves. If these
series of structured data are combined with a minimal set of theoretical hypotheses
and conclusions, as Gustav Schmoller had demanded, the resulting approach may


18

K.-H. Schmidt

be called “Schmollerism”. It should be applicable in different economic situations
and phases of economic development. But it is important to note, that even this
concept needs at least some basic assumptions concerning human behavior, economic resources and relations between institutions and economic activities.
German newspapers and journals recently published related reports on scientific
congress-speeches and discussions (for example FAZ, 07.09.2016 and 02.10.2016):
e.g. “Ökonomen auf Sinnsuche” (02.10.2016) and “How economists want to finish
their own crisis” (07.09.2016) (translated version). The concerned contributions
included different views of the authors involved in the debates on the relations of
economic theory and history. At the annual congress of the “Verein für Socialpolitik
(VfS)” in 2016 economists demanded that economists must leave the ivory towers
of economic theory; they should teach the students and inform the public audience

about the relevance of their theories and models for the real world. The German
economic-historian Albrecht Ritschl, London, emphasized, that history should be
acknowledged as an “immensely important, by far not yet totally exploited source
of empirical facts and experiments, which should be investigated by scholars of
economic sciences” (FAZ, 07.09.2016, p. 17). Nils Goldschmidt, Siegen, author of
articles on history of economic thought, demanded more discussions on the empirical basis of open, further developing economics (FAZ, 22.08.2016, p.  20). Axel
Ockenfels, Cologne, in a later article, proclaimed that economists can offer a specific model for every specific empirical situation – but also for a contrasting case.
The question for the relevant model, instead, would not be answered on the grounds
of theoretical reasoning. Therefore Ockenfels concluded, that without checking the
models by empirical research the relevance-problem cannot be solved: “Ohne
Realitätscheck geht es nicht” (Ockenfels, A.: Die Ökonomik im Realitätscheck”, in:
FAZ, 27.12.2016, p. 18). These statements sound similar to N.W. Balabkins book-­
title “Not by theory alone …” (1988). It seems, both statements correspond to
“Schmollerism”.

5  Summary and Conclusions
The objective of the article was to point out the scientific rise of Gustav Schmoller
and his fall into oblivion soon after his death in 1917, but also to demonstrate, that
since the end of the twentieth century and recently (around 2017) new interests in
Schmoller’s works are proclaimed. An evolution of new interests “in Schmoller”
seems to be going on, mainly in terms of publication of new studies on the long term
effects of “Schmoller’s Program” and research-results. Also, it was maintained that
this aspect may be called “Schmollerism”.
In three paragraphs of the article ahead the development of Gustav Schmoller’s
life and scientific works was discussed – not in details of every phase of his life, and
not for his activities in total, but concerning important works and influences on
economic and social sciences. The first paragraph summarized some biographical
data, which may explain Schmoller’s career. Also, comments on the “Schmoller

Gustav Schmoller’s Program and Its Valuation Today and Tomorrow

19

Program” and Schmoller’s diverse activities at the university and in politics and
society are considered. The second paragraph mainly concerned Schmoller’s publications, first, published around 1917 or after, second around 1988 or after. It was
demonstrated that Schmoller’s career-curve had steeply arisen since the end of the
nineteenth century, but that it relatively shortly came to decline after Schmoller’s
death, mainly during the 1920’s and later. The third paragraph should demonstrate
the rise of new interests in “Schmoller”. The new key-word “Big Data” was mentioned, and the term “Schmollerism” was introduced to refer to new attempts to
keep the “Schmoller-Program” fit for critical statements, but also for opportunities
during a future development of a broadened research approach of theory-guided
historical/empirical investigations in economic and social sciences. To conclude:
“Schmoller is alive again in sciences.”

References
Backhaus, J.G. (1993/1994): Gustav Schmoller and the Problems of Today, in: History of Economic
Ideas, I/1993, II/1994/1, Roma, Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale, pp. 3–25.
Balabkins, N. (1988): Not by Theory alone … The Economics of Gustav Schmoller and Its Legacy
to America. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.
Balabkins, N. (1993a): Schmoller und der Stammbaum der nationalökonomischen Wissenschaft:
„Mit der Theorie allein kommt man nicht aus“. In: Backhaus, J.G. (ed.): Gustav Schmoller und
die Probleme von heute. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, pp. 19–26.
Balabkins, N. (1993b): Gustav Schmoller and the Emergency of Welfare Capitalism. In: History of
Economic Ideas, I/1993, II/1994/1, Roma, Gruppo Editorale Internationale, pp. 27–42.
Brandt, K. (1988): Schmoller, in: Staatslexikon, 7th edition, vol. 4, Freiburg, Basel, Wien, col.
1056–1058.
Brinkmann, C. (1956): Schmoller, Gustav, in: Handwörterbuch der Sozialwissenschaften, 9. Band,
Stuttgart a.o., Fischer a.o., pp. 135,136.
Goldschmidt, N.: Was die Kritiker der pluralen Ökonomik nicht verstehen. In: FAZ, 22.08.2016,

p. 20.
Hansen, R. (1993): Gustav Schmoller und die Sozialpolitik von Heute, in: J.  Backhaus (ed.):
Gustav Schmoller und die Probleme von heute. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, pp. 111–184.
Harms, B. (1913): Weltwirtschaft und Weltwirtschaftslehre, in: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol.
I, p. 2.
Hintze, O. (1928): Gustav von Schmoller, repr. in: Recktenwald, H.C. (ed.): Lebensbilder großer
Nationalökonomen (1965), Köln, Berlin, pp. 333–345.
Kaufhold, K.H. (1989): Gustav Schmoller heute: die Entwicklung der Sozialwissenschaften in
Deutschland und Italien. Bologna, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, pp. 89–116.
Lifschitz, F. (1914): Die historische Schule der Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Bern, Stämpfli & Cie.
o. V.: Wie die Ökonomen ihre eigene Krise beenden wollen. In: FAZ, 07.09.2016, p. 17.
Ockenfels, A.: Die Ökonomik im Realitätscheck. In: FAZ, 27.12.2016, p. 18.
Plickert, Ph.: Ökonomen auf Sinnsuche. In: FAZ, 02.10.2016.
Rieter, H. (2008): Gustav Schmollers Erinnerungen an seine Jugendzeit. In: Schrenk, Chr., Wanner,
P. (ed.): heilbronnica 4. Beiträge zur Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte. Quellen und Forschungen
zur Geschichte der Stadt Heilbronn, 19. Jahrbuch für schwäbisch-fränkische Geschichte 36,
Stadtarchiv Heilbronn, pp. 323–350.
Rieter, H. and Zweynert, J. (2006): Gustav Schmoller and Globalisation. In: Schmollers Jahrbuch
126, pp. 225–250.