Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:36:40.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

KARL KNIES AND THE PREHISTORY OF NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS: UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF “DIE NATIONALOEKONOMISCHE LEHRE VOM WERTH” (1855)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2011

KOSMAS PAPADOPOULOS  and
BRADLEY W. BATEMAN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay serves as the introduction to the authors’ translation of Karl Knies’ essay “Die nationaloekonomische Lehre vom Werth” (1855). Knies is one of the acknowledged founders of the Older German Historical School, and yet in recent years several writers have described his 1855 essay as seminal in the evolution of marginal utility analysis. The authors examine how Knies develops his nascent theory of marginal reasoning in his essay, arguing that rather than cling to his earlier historicist programmatic, Knies attempts to discover general laws; however, not by strict causal analysis but by a typical ‘German art’ of taxonomy and classification that resembles juridical argumentations. This results in an ambiguous text, which influenced several marginalist pioneers who studied under Knies at Heidelberg (including Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and John Bates Clark), as well as several members of the Younger German Historical School (including Gustav von Schmoller).

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 19 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bateman, Bradley W. 2004. “Why Institutional Economics Matters as a Category of Historical Analysis.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. Volume 22A: 193–201Google Scholar
Chipman, John. S. 2005. “Contributions of the Older German Schools to the Development of Utility Theory.” In Scheer, Christian, ed., Studien zur Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie XX: Die Ältere Historische Schule: Wirtschaftstheoretische Beiträge und wirtschaftspolitische Vorstellungen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot:56–259.Google Scholar
Cohn, Gustav. 1899. “Obituary: Karl Knies.” Economic Journal 9(35): 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekelund, Robert, and Hebert, Robert. 2002. “Retrospectives: The Origins of Neoclassical Microeconomics” Journal of Economics Perspectives (Summer): 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildebrand, Bruno. 1848. Die Nationalökonomie der Gegenwart und Zukunft. Erster Band. Frankfurt am Main: Literarische Anstalt.Google Scholar
Kisch, Herbert. 1968. “Karl Knies.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan and Free Press.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1850. Die Statistick als selbständige Wissenschaft. Kassel: verlag der J. Luckhardt’schen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1853. Die Politische Oekonomie vom Standpunkte der geschichtlichen Methode, Braunschweig: E.A. Schweischke und Sohn.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1855. “Die nationalöekonomische Lehre vom Werth.” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 11.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1873. Das Geld. Berlin: Weidman.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1874. Weldgeld und Weltmünze. Berlin. Weidman.Google Scholar
Knies, Karl. 1879. Der Kredit. Berlin. Weidman.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Jun. 2002. “Karl Knies’s Conception of Political Economy—The Logical Status of Analogie and Sitte.” In Shionoya, Yuichi, ed., The German Historical School: The Historical and Ethical Approach to Economics. London: Routledge: 54–71.Google Scholar
Menger, Carl. 1950. Principles of Economics: First General Part. Trans. Dingwall, James and Hoselitz, Bert F.. Glencoe, Il: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Menger, Carl. 1963. Problems of Economics and Sociology. Ed. Schneider, Louis; trans. Nock, Francis J.Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Rau, Karl H. 1847. Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie. Erster Band: Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre. Fifth edition. Heidelberg: Akadem.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1998. A History of Economic Thought: The LSE Lectures. Ed. Medema, Steven G. and Samuels., Warren J.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roscher, Wilhelm. 1854. System der Volkswirthschaft. Erster Band. Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie. Ein Hand- und Lesebuch für Geschäftmänner und Studiere. Stuttgart und Tübingen: J.G Cotta’scher Verlag.Google Scholar
Schefold, Bertram. 1987. “Karl Knies.” New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. Economic Doctrine and Method: An Historical Sketch. Trans. Aris, R.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Streissler, Erich W. 1990. “The Influence of German Economics on the Work of Menger and Marshall.” In Caldwell, Bruce J., ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics. Annual Supplement to Volume 22, History of Political Economy. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Waterman, A. M.C. 2003. “Mathematical Modeling as an Exegetical Tool: Rational Reconstruction.” In Samuels, W. J., Biddle, J. E., and Davis, J. B., eds. A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1975. Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar