news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

on march 5, 1895, max weber wrote to the economist adolph wagner that he was almost a beginner in the new discipline of national economics and finance. weber began to teach national economics and finance (nationalökonomie und und finanzwissenschaft) in freiburg in the winter semester of 1894-1895. three years later, he went to heidelberg to take over the teaching position of karl knies, one of the representatives of the historical economics school. as an encyclopedic scholar, weber's knowledge achievements in many fields for a long time made it easy for people to ignore the fact that he taught at universities as an economist throughout his career, and his origins in economics in terms of research content and methods.

weber is rightly regarded as one of the representatives of classical sociology, but as lawrence scaff said, people lack interest in "weber before weberian sociology". the first article in the max weber memorial collection evaluated weber's contribution to the field of economics. german economist edgar salin also said: "in the history of german economics, there is no greater person than max weber." however, there are also scholars in the field of economics who do not regard weber as a fellow traveler. austrian economist ludwig von mises commented on this: "it is certain that weber is a professor of economics at two universities and a professor of sociology at two other universities. however, he is neither an economist nor a sociologist, but a historian. he is not familiar with the economic theory system. in his view, economics and sociology are historical sciences."

this statement is a common but long-standing misunderstanding. was weber really unfamiliar with the economic theory system? today, it seems unnecessary to discuss whether max weber is an economist. however, what kind of economist is he?

max weber

"the successor of the historical school of economics" or a fellow traveler of the austrian school?

in his inaugural speech in freiburg, weber mentioned "we, the descendants of the german historical school of economics" (wir jünger der deutschen historischen schule) many times. it is generally believed that the "historical school of economics" was founded by wilhelm roscher and developed by bruno hilderbrand and karl knies, who together formed what was later called the "old historical school". in 1902, weber's spirit was initially restored and he could return to academic work. he did not turn to real social problems again, but instead devoted himself more deeply than before to basic methodological research, starting with a criticism of the historical economics method. "roscher and knies: logical problems of historical economics" (roscher und knies und die logischen probleme der historischen nationalökonomie) was published in the main journal of the german historical school of economics, "schmollers jahrbuch", and the title directly refers to the two elders (altmeister) of historical economics. although weber still refers to "our professional discipline" (unsere fachdisziplin), which is "historical economics" (historische nationalökonomie), weber expressed his wish to discuss "the relationship between 'theoretical' and 'historical' research work in our profession, which has been problematic until now" (verhältnis zwischen "theoretischer" und "historischer" arbeit).

the historical school of economics formed a new wave around gustav schmoller from the 1870s, the later "young historical school", who advocated staying away from any connection with theoretical methods and conducted a large number of economic history studies. schmoller believed that theoretical economics would only produce useless stories about robinson crusoe and should not be taught in german universities. disciples of "abstract" theory should not teach in german universities. austrian economist carl menger accused the historical method of german economics of indulging in empirical descriptions from which "exact laws" or "typical statements" could not be derived. although menger's criticism was written with great respect for the achievements of the german historical school and he agreed with the representatives of the german historical school on many things, menger's academic criticism aroused the hostility of schmoller, who responded fiercely, thus setting off the famous "methodological dispute" (methodenstreit) in economics. in the subsequent debate on "value judgments" in social sciences, weber's main target was schmoller, the leader of the historical school of economics. weber clearly opposed schmoller and others' "proposing various binding norms and ideals so that plans for practice can be derived from these norms and ideals" because "this would never be the task of an empirical science."

in 1919, weber began to serve as a professor at the university of munich. the previous incumbent was lujo brentano, who was regarded as a representative of the young historical school of economics. weber relied on brentano's research in his teaching on the development of modern industrial labor, but after the publication of brentano's "the development of the theory of value", weber wrote to brentano to make a substantial defense of the "marginal utility" theory: "he (menger) is indeed overestimating himself, that is true; but he has also made very considerable achievements, including being right on many of the most important points in his debate with schmoller." weber also advocated the scope and role of theory in his methodological article "the theory of marginal utility and the "basic laws of psychophysics", and economic theory "can be used not only as a heuristic means to analyze, but also as a constructive means to show the diversity of experience."

weber, who stood between the history and theory of economics, was indeed a "heir of the historical school of economics". in 1897, weber admitted: "although i do not agree with brentano or (his students)... the social policy association in all details, i think i must count myself as one of them." at the same time, compared with other members of the historical school of economics, weber expressed a considerable degree of sympathy and acceptance for the austrian school. however, weber did not take sides due to the sectarianism of economics. his attitude was more of an independent "sideways stand", and he tried to find a feasible and stable economic method to overcome the "two economics" (zwei nationalökonomien) problem separated by the seemingly unbridgeable historical and theoretical gap mentioned in the article "objectivity in social science knowledge and social policy knowledge".

weber as a political economist

weber studied law during college and was eligible to enter the legal profession after passing the bar exam in 1886, but he chose to engage in academic research. when weber was preparing for the bar exam, his mother saw that "he was always more interested in the historical evolution of law than in its application." weber conducted research on medieval business partnerships under the guidance of levin goldschmidt, a famous german commercial law professor. goldschmidt placed more emphasis on analyzing and comparing the historical roots of law. from his early research, weber was able to continuously reveal new and insightful insights into empirical phenomena from the perspective of different disciplines, which were first reflected in law and economics.

weber was tired of the "essentially mechanical" legal work he had done as a junior lawyer. on the other hand, law had lost the centrality it had held in the task of german nation-building during weber's student days, and economics had become more important, and more important to law itself. weber was acutely aware of this fact, and when he was invited to freiburg to take up the professorship of economics in 1893, he accepted. in his inaugural speech, weber noted that "we are witnessing today that the hot topics in the field of economics have aroused a general interest in this generation that has never been seen before", and he commented:

in all fields we see the rise of the so-called "economic way of looking at things". ... the economic way of looking at things is entering the most intimate areas of jurisprudence, in the handbooks of the pantheists. in court decisions we often find that when legal concepts have reached their limits, the so-called economic point of view is introduced - it is fashionable, as a fellow jurist puts it.

weber's shift from law to political economy was not simply an escape from the relatively dull world of jurisprudence, as marianne weber concludes:

changing the direction of his research was consistent with his wishes. compared with law, political economy as a discipline is still "young" and flexible. secondly, it is on the edge of several other disciplines and is directly related to cultural history, intellectual history and philosophical issues. finally, in terms of the orientation of political and social policies, this discipline is more fruitful than studying the more normative issues in legal thought.

political economy was still a young discipline in 19th century germany. weber's appointment to a position was at odds with his professional training, and in a letter to karl oldenberg on january 28, 1895, he self-deprecatingly called himself an "idle interloper". the young professor of political economy, weber, began preparing for his lectures on general economic theory at the university of freiburg in the summer of 1894, and he devoted considerable energy to this new discipline. although weber was a newcomer in the discipline, according to marianne, in the spring of 1896 weber felt that he had mastered his new subject. the positive evaluation of the appointment at the university of heidelberg at the turn of 1896-1897 supported weber's abilities in the field of political economy: "among the young teachers of political economy, max weber occupies a very special place" and stated that "he will become one of the leading figures in his field".

in the summer semester of 1897, weber taught a main course in heidelberg, "general ("theoretical") economics", which he taught for six hours a week. he also taught practical economics, and returned to "general ("theoretical") economics" in the summer semester of 1898. he wrote and printed the outline of the course and the lecture notes for the first section "conceptual foundations of economics". the course outline is divided into 6 volumes and 20 chapters, including "introduction: tasks and methods of theoretical economics", volume 2 "natural foundations of economics", volume 3 "historical foundations of economics", volume 4 "development of economic theory", volume 5 "theoretical analysis of modern exchange economy" and volume 6 "development and analysis of economy and society".

in the section "topics and methods of theoretical national economics" in the syllabus of his "lectures on general (or "theoretical") national economics" grundriss zu den vorlesungen über allgemeine ("theoretische") nationalökonomie, weber covered the knowledge of the field of "economics" in the mid-1890s in great detail, combining the works of scholars from multiple schools of thought, including the main works of the old historical school roscher, hildebrand and knies, as well as the methodological works of menger and schmoller, keynes' works, and finally schmoller's "handbook of national statistics" (handwörterbuch der staatswissenschaften) on economics and economic methods. in terms of the scope of the references, weber had no preference for the various schools of economics at the time, and mainly considered the rationality of teaching and chapters. after the introduction, there is a chapter called "conceptual foundations of economics", in which the literature begins with the names of menger, bohm-bawerk, and friedrich von wieser, followed by rudolph auspitz, richard lieben, patten in the united states, and léon walras in france. there are also adam smith, ricardo, and marx, who are more familiar to us (although weber classified them as old theories). these names show that weber understood and grasped the concepts of modern economics. in this sense, the economics he knew was more international than it is today.

for weber, political economy is a "human science". economics is not a science that studies nature and its properties, but a science that studies people and their needs. but at the same time, weber also emphasized that just as national economics is not a natural science, it is not a discipline that focuses on ethical issues. weber discussed the economic needs of people and the composition of "commodities" as a means to meet these needs. he believed that "utility" cannot be determined objectively, but gains meaning in satisfying subjectively understood human needs. the satisfaction of needs is a question of "marginal utility", so the estimate of value stems from the subjective perception of needs and the objective availability of goods. the second part of the course, "the natural foundations of economics", explores the natural conditions of economic activity - the material basis of economic activity - from the perspective of political geography, population and ethnic characteristics. next, under the title "historical foundations of economics", weber is far from simply historicizing the economic process, but covers the development of contemporary economic institutions such as factories, banks, stock exchanges and trade institutions. references to "stages of development of economic theory" also include "capital" and engels' "anti-dühring". in the fifth part, "theoretical analysis of the modern economy (verkekrswirtschaf)", weber discusses transportation, telegraph, shipping, currency, credit organizations, banks, etc. in the field of material production, as well as markets, exchanges and trade institutions. he also studies the core concepts of economic theory analysis such as price formation and income distribution.

connecting "theory" and "history"

weber used the "ideal type" as a conceptual tool to connect theory and history. the "ideal type" may be more misunderstood than weber as an economist. many critics believe that the "ideal type" escapes empirical verification, and any research that attempts to summarize typical characteristics cannot deal with the diversity of historical reality. although weber repeatedly clarified the temporary nature of the "ideal type" conceptual tool, many people who later cited weber's name only used the "ideal type" as a means to reduce the efforts of empirical research.

weber never regarded "ideal types" as the essence of the empirical world. he repeatedly emphasized that "ideal types" are abstract, one-sided and unreal, but they have an important tool function in scientific research. weber's position is the same as menger's moderate position in the "methodology" dispute. in menger's view, the doctrine of theoretical economics is precisely one-sided and abstract, but any realistic, that is, historical economics cannot get rid of the help provided by such abstract propositions. weber advocated that in national economics, some ideas of what should be are always combined with a concept extracted from the empirical process of price formation, which strongly affects the empirical price formation process. "it can only be identified and expressed through clear, that is, ideal typical concept construction." in this regard, weber believes that "in any case, those who laugh at the 'robinson' story' (robinsonaden) of various abstract theories should think about this before they can come up with anything better (clearer) to replace this way of theoretical construction."

weber believed that abstract economic theory was a rich source of "ideal types" that historians, including economic historians, began to study. "rational man" is one of the most famous concepts in the economic field. it is itself an assumption of classical liberal economics. the german historical school of economics spared no effort to prove that this is just an illusion and should never be confused with real "people". weber certainly would not naively believe that the essence of man is "rational man", nor would he regard "ideal type" as a goal and model. in weber's eyes, "the ideal type about brothels and the ideal type about religion are both ideal types", and he even explained "ideal" in a joking way. in 1905, weber explained his conceptual innovation in a letter to philosopher rickert:

your linguistic skepticism about "ideal types" annoys me, a vain person. but i think that if we speak of bismarck not as an "ideal" among the germans, but as an "ideal type" of the germans, we do not mean a "model" per se, but that he possesses certain german qualities that are essentially different and perhaps even unpleasant, and that he has a distinct height in "conceptual purity."

weber believed that german economics had confused theory and history: people believed in theoretical conceptual images and fixed the "real" content or "essence" of historical reality; or took these theoretical conceptual images as a kind of "procrustes' bed" and forced history into them; or took various "ideas" as some "real" reality behind the phenomenon, as some real "forces" that acted in history and materialized them. the clear understanding of these misunderstandings shows that weber is not a "idea determinist" at all. it's just that weber took into account that the "ideas" that have an impact in history live in the minds of an unspecified and constantly changing group of people in experience, and the content or clarity of their experience presents various and different levels of depth, so a logically clear and pure thought construct is needed to integrate the infinite and scattered phenomena in these experiences.

on the basis of synthesizing the german historicist tradition and the theoretical principles of modern economics, weber transcended the sectarian disputes and ideological barriers between different economic schools and developed an understanding of modern capitalism as a modern overall lifestyle. while considering the "economic historical explanation", weber explored the heuristic role of concepts and theories in explaining historical and real phenomena. in a certain sense, weber was the most "radical" practitioner of the "historical" method that rejected metaphysics and analyzed and explored various "historically accidental" fragments and unexpected results of mankind (the next person to do this may be foucault, but foucault did not cover so many fields as weber), and used an empirical study that truly implemented his methodology as a demonstration of cultural science. this work is the famous "the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism".

the more we understand weber's work in the context of history, the less we equate his research field with the problems of modern disciplines. in an era of inevitable specialization, the transgression of general perspectives and disciplinary specialties is usually accompanied by a certain arbitrariness, or "half-baked" as weber often said. however, as weber said, "unintentionality" has no inherent affinity with scientific "objectivity", and specialization has no necessary relationship with the complexity and depth of thought and knowledge. re-understanding weber before "weberian sociology" and weber outside of "sociological weber" will see weber's ability to absorb, learn and integrate different knowledge, his continuous efforts and unique creations for the clarity and stability of research in the field of cultural sciences without losing complexity. in the end, social science fulfilled its promise to shape rationality in weber's sense as a "science of man".