Dr. Henry William Spiegel : emigre economist, historian of economics, creative scholar, and companion - 1911-1995 - Remembrance and Appreciation Roundtable

Samuel H. Bostaph

I

Hagemann on the Emigre Economist

What were the contributions of Jewish scholars to the development of American economics? What role did emigre economists play in the process of developing mathematical economics? These were the key questions Henry Spiegel asked at the end of his life. Indeed, Spiegel was one of a large number of European refugees who arrived in the United States between 1933 and the end of World War II, mainly but not exclusively from Nazi Germany and Austria. When he analyzed and assessed the various contributions by eminent Jewish intellectuals and refugee scholars to the subdisciplines of economics for the Jewish-American History and Culture: An Encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1992), the new ideas and different traditions that the Jewish scholars brought into the social structures that existed before their arrival, especially the merging with the American tradition, inspired Spiegel to return to his roots.

Henry William Spiegel was born in Berlin, Germany, on October 13, 1911. Despite the financial setbacks connected to the early death of his parents, in 1930 he graduated from the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Gymnasium, where he received a classical humanities education. After this, he studied law at the Universities of Heidelberg and Cologne, and attended the University of Berlin, where he received the Doctor of Laws degree in 1933. The anti-Jewish Nazi administration denied Spiegel his appointment as a lawyer, although he did pass the first state examination. For some time he made a living as a journalist, publishing, for example, two long newspaper stories on war economics and the debate about nationalization of the munitions industry in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung (July 8, 1936, and August 21-22, 1936). That same year he emigrated to the United States. Nearly two thirds of the 330 emigre economists addressed in Hagemann's and Krohn's research project (1998) ended up in the United States.

Spiegel was a member of the cohort of emigre scholars who got their first academic training at German or Austrian universities but were still young enough and flexible enough to start all over again and obtain a second one in their new countries, typically the United States or the United Kingdom. Members of this group, including economists such as Richard A. Musgrave (born 1910), Sir Hans Singer (born 1910) and Wolfgang F. Stolper (born 1912), sometimes humorously refer to the fact that they have been "Emigrationsgewinner," meaning that despite all privations and problems of emigration - they were benefitting from "crossing traditions." Musgrave (1996, 1997) demonstrated how the German writers in the Finanzwisseschaft tradition benefitted from a broader perspective compared with the Anglo-Saxon public finance tradition. The English tradition developed as an integral part of standard economics and shared both its analytic rigor and its natural law bias. In Germany, the Anglo-Saxon approach was afforded a much less hospitable treatment than Finanzwissenschaft. The historical and administrative slant of the Fianzwissenschaft approach enjoyed high standing among the several branches of economics.

Development economics emerged as a new economics subdiscipline at the end of World War II. This development can be identified with the migration and resettlement of the emigre economists who made the most important contributions. Whereas only ten out of one hundred listed in Blaug's (1985) Great Economists Since Keynes came from Germany and Austria (all emigrated in the 1930s),(1) the percentage of emigre scholars among the pioneers of economic development is three times higher. Paul N. Rosenstein-Rodan (1902-1985) and Kurt Mandelbaum (Martin since 1947; 1904-1995) can be regarded as the "founding fathers." Albert O. Hirschman, H. W. Singer, Paul Streeten, and many others all made eminent contributions. This field was a virtual magnet for doctoral research during the 1950s.

Whereas the full story still has to be written, there are at least two reasons for this high concentration. As in other areas of research, young scholars tend to go into newly rising subdisciplines; in physics, for example, the percentage of refugee scholars was far higher in innovative subdisciplines such as quantum theory or nuclear physics than in paradigmatic old areas such as acoustics and mechanics. Second, many refugee scholars have emphasized the fact that due to emigration, these emigres had become "citizens of the world," whereas before very often they had been bound up in national traditions. Taking care of the "backward" areas of the world was quite a natural outgrowth of these attitudes. Spiegel, along with other well-known economists, including "enemy aliens" like Hirschman and Paul Baran, had served in the U.S. Office of Strategic Services from 1942 to 1945. Spiegel's attitude following his early research on Brazil with a Guggenheim Fellowship to study the Brazilian economy, clearly can be seen in this context. Spiegel's approach to the Brazilian economy (1949) emphasizes the political economy of development rather than the narrow technical conditions for "steady-state" growth which to some extent has come to replace the older institutional approach.

In his last article, published posthumously, Spiegel (1997, p. 345) came to the conclusion that refugee economists from Germany proper made only a modest contribution to the mathematization of economics, quite unlike the contribution of refugee economists from Austria and other European countries, which was far greater. "One only has to think of Karl Menger, Oskar Morgenstern or Abraham Wald, particularly the work of the economists at the Cowles Commission like Marschak, Koopmans and many others," Spiegel notes, and he advances the thesis that

The German refugee economists suffered from a double handicap. Before the war they had to cope with the Great Depression. After the war, they had to cope with the mathematization of economics, for which many of them were not prepared.... There is a dialectic... because the very same education in a broader sense with its emphasis on the humanities, the classics, the great books, history, and foreign languages dead and alive, that so benefitted the refugees also made their task coping with the mathematization of economics more difficult. They benefitted from their general education, but their training in economics was of questionable value. Many refugee economists were trained in the shadow of the Historical school and had to undergo a second immigration, an intellectual one. from this shadow, to be equipped to appreciate mathematical economics properly. People shed only with difficulty what they have earned in their youth (1997, pp. 347-8).

This statement can be read as a strong element of self-evaluation. Spiegel's training in Germany was that of a lawyer. He was not an economist and certainly not a mathematical economist. But training in the law makes a person more open to institutional and historical material than mathematical factors. Spiegel's most celebrated contribution to the history of economic thought, his The Growth of Economic Thought (1971), is a masterpiece. It is not coincidental that the history of economic thought became the domain of refugee scholars. Eduard Heimann's History of Economic Doctrines (1945), Joseph A. Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis (1954), Mark Blaug's Economic Theory in Retrospect (1962), or Karl Pribram's History of Economic Reasoning (1983) all attest to this rule. A good author, on top of being a good economist, clearly has to be cosmopolitan. Indeed, in his host country Spiegel, noted that a central American characteristic is to have a far more forward-looking perspective and a worse memory than people have in most other countries.

In his article called "The Passing of the Guard in Economics," Paul Samuelson (1988, p. 319) concluded that "the triumphant rise of American economics after 1940 was enormously accelerated by importation of scholars from Hitlerian Europe." Henry Spiegel was one of those important imports.

II

Samuels on Spiegel's Pioneering Efforts as a Historian

Henry Spiegel was a pleasant, cooperative, perceptive, and judicious scholar; he was widely read and deeply educated. He could be angelic in appearance. He also was, so far as I knew him, a self-effacing and diffident man. But for all that, he was a strong and confident man who did not shrink from undertaking ambitious and powerful projects in our field, several of which were pioneering.

Spiegel wrote a number of articles in the history of economic thought, many referee reports for the leading journals in his field, but not as many journal articles as he should have. He also wrote his magisterial The Growth of Economic Thought (1971), about which Ingrid Rima and Craufurd Goodwin have written later in this article. His The Rise of American Economic Thought (1960) introduced, brought together and interpreted the work of some two dozen early U.S. economists and several important episodes prior to 1886. His The Development of Economic Thought: Great Economists in Perspective (1952) brought together previously published and newly commissioned materials on economists summarizing and, especially, interpreting the work of other economists, from Aristotle on Plato, to Paul A. Samuelson on John Maynard Keynes, to Colin Clark on Arthur Cecil Pigou.

Nineteen fifty-two was probably too early for him to have included essays on John R. Hicks and Samuelson; after all, it was not until 1954, and even then only with great prescience, did we read language in Joseph Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis(1954) indicating that economists were then in the age of Hicks and Samuelson; at any rate, and surely wisely, they were not included (although an essay by Gottfried Haberler on Schumpeter himself was). In other words, Spiegel carried the history of economic thought up to the then near-present, although restricting himself to those subjects who, with the exception of Pigou, were already deceased. He did not believe that the study of the history of economic thought should cease with the previous generation. That is, of course, a matter of judgment-one which Joseph Dorfman, for one, the other great historian of U. S. economics, disagreed.

Some thirty or so years after Spiegel published/be Development of Economic/bought, I approached him about up-dating the period of coverage in a sequel. Somewhere around 1980, Spiegel agreed to a collaboration. The concept was the same in one key respect: established economists writing on the work of other leading economists. One concept, however, was different: The economists who would be our subjects were for the most part all alive. Although exceptionally well established, they often were still working. This became in part an exercise in contemporary history of economic thought but perhaps more so an exercise in contemporary summarization, systematization, interpretation, and criticism.

Fortunately we were able to reprint the essays on the Nobelists from the Scandinavian Journal of Economics (formerly Swedish Journal of Economics). The other essays we commissioned. All invited authors except one produced essays; the missing essay was to be on Robert M. Solow, and its omission, we agreed, was serious. A number of these other subjects have since become Nobelists (though it was not our intention to predict them).

Spiegel and I jointly chose the names of subjects and commissioned the authors. The general structure of the collection was largely Spiegel's idea. Part I covered varieties of mainstream economics in five subsections: generalists; specialists; Keynesians, fiscalists, and post-Keynesians; anti-Keynesians and monetarists; and econometrics and quantitative techniques. Part II covered eddies in the mainstream, including Jacob Marschak, Kenneth Boulding, Herbert Simon, George Katona, Francois Perroux, James Buchanan, and George Shackle. Part III encompassed varieties of heterodox economics in two subsections: Marxism and the Cambridge controversy and the further development of institutional economics (partly misprinted as industrial economics).

My research assistant, Michael Plummet, and I proofread the page proofs, a point I mention only to say that it was only at that time, and not when I had initially read the manuscripts, that I recognized how widespread was a continuing theme or subtext the presence of which I should have both anticipated and observed earlier but did not. That was the ubiquitous attention given by macroeconomists to the problem of uncertainty and the diverse ways in which these scholars had dealt with it. Of course, the story of how economists handle uncertainty did not end then.

As for the collection, I will only say that Henry and I were quite pleased with it. After my collaboration with Spiegel, I continued to produce other sequels (with coeditor Steve Medema) around the basic framework pioneered by Henry Spiegel.(2) I consider these contributions important to our understanding of how contemporary work participates in working out the development of economics as an intellectual discipline and to enabling economists to be more alert to what they are doing.

I mention these projects because, in a very profound sense, they are the intellectual grandchildren not quite in the image of the grandfather but close enough for family resemblance to be both obvious and worthy of note and acclaim for the patriarch. I have studied the history of economic thought with a number of economists directly; but in these ventures my mentor, and, at one remove, Steve Medema's, has been Henry Spiegel. We are in his debt.

III

Rima on Spiegel "The Last of the Descriptive Textbook Writers"

The essence of Speigel's approach to presenting the history of economic thought is nowhere set forth more succinctly than in his Preface to his several editions of The Growth of Economic Thought (1971), the third of which was published in 1991 by Duke University Press. In his own words, he aimed "to strengthen the link between economics and the humanities, and to relate the history of economic thought to the intellectual tendencies of various periods. This [means] that a cultural approach was chosen to establish a humanistic orientation, rather than a technical one that would convert earlier theory into mathematical models." More specifically, as Spiegel wrote, his concern was to raise the following question: "How did a writer or his school (including those of the pre-classical period) propose to cope with the fundamental problem of scarcity?" The language of the preface to the third edition is precisely the same as that of the first two, and Spiegel noted, with justifiable pride, that the main body of his work had survived twenty years without change. All that is new in the third edition is an introductory chapter that served as an overview of the history of economic thought and methodology as it evolved during the 1980s and 1990s.

Spiegel's new chapter is concerned with the process of accumulating economic knowledge, specifically what is bequeathed from one generation to the next, driving home the point that in economics, as in the social sciences more generally, propositions do not have timeless validity. This way, Spiegel took note of the recent concern that many contemporary economists have about rhetoric as, the art of persuasion with respect to ideas and "economic laws" that encapsulate the key relationships from which policy issues arise and that provided direction in political economy. Political economy implicitly has ideological content unless special care is taken to remove all sociological or class bias. Only then do those engaged in "doing economics" emerge as a distinct group of professional specialists whose pronouncements stand apart from the concerns of national polities or class interest. With effort, professional economists can become sufficiently unified to represent what Thomas Kuhn dubbed a universal paradigm. Spiegel urges that the history of economics be studied as a species of intellectual history, most properly conceived as a subset of the archeology of knowledge.

Surely, all serious scholars of the history of economic thought aspire to Spiegel's Olympian high ground about his discipline and think of themselves as "intellectual historians" who pursue knowledge of the development of economic thought in the broadest possible context - as part of development of knowledge itself. But when it comes to the far less lofty pursuit of writing a textbook (I avoid calling it a "lowly pursuit," which is the perception of many of our colleagues who regard the production of articles, monographs, and books published by academic presses as the highest form of scholarship) there are, of necessity, other considerations.

When compared in its content and approach with other popular texts in use in 1971, the publication date of Spiegel's first edition of The Growth of Economic Thought, we find that it had much in common with Fred Bell's A History of Economic Thought published in 1953 and Louis Haney's History of Economic Thought, whose first edition dated from 1941. These books are essentially descriptive treatments of the history of economics. They allocate a certain amount of space to preclassical thought from the Greco-Roman period to the Middle Ages. In this regard, Spiegel's approach in 1971 was essentially the same as that of writers whose first editions were published some thirty years before his!

By way of contrast, later texts, specifically William Fellner's Modern Economic Analysis published in 1960, Blaug's Economic Theory in Retrospect (1962) and my own Development of Economic Analysis (1967) reflect a fairly substantial shift in focus from the earlier intellectual history approach. The later texts signal the emergence to the history of economic theory or analysis, as distinct from the history of economic thought (HET). The mercantilism thinking, or perhaps that of the physiocrats, is their starting point, dismissing the preclassicists as without having much relevance so far as theoretical economics is concerned. HET qua HET is essentially descriptive rather than technical. The history of economic analysis may focus more narrowly than the more conventional HET; although that is not necessarily the case. Analysis need not be divorced from cultural, sociological, or political movements or, for that matter, whatever biographical facts the author considers useful by way of capturing the essentials of the period and the individual or school examined. The essential difference between the older history of economic thought and the newer history of economic analysis lies in the objective of giving the student proficiency in understanding the nature of the economist's "box of tools" and the way in which improvements in technique, new information, and changes in institutions over historical time have reshaped the problems of particular eras. There is no room in this approach for concern about historical antecedents for their own sake; on the other hand, the final product emerges as a historically conscious presentation of the essentials of modern economics.

The shift in perspective from what is essentially description to analysis is one which Spiegel refused to make. His text was and remains radically different from those I think of as the "substantial texts" that date from the 1960s and 1970s. Among these I would include Robert E. Ekelund, Jr.,and Robert Hebert's A History of Economic Theory and Method (1975), Harry Landreth's (1976), and E. Ray Canterbury's The Making of Economics (1976), all of which reflect the increasingly technical nature of economic reasoning since the 1960s. Despite the inclusion of the word "analysis" in its title, and the reverence that scholars in the history of thought accord to it, Joseph Schumpeter's monumental History of Economic Analysis (1954; republished in 1994 by Oxford University Press with new introduction by Mark Perlman) is not the source of the perspective from which many contemporary practitioners of history of economic thought are proceeding. Even those economists who are several decades removed from their formal doctoral training and have become generalists or specialists in other areas of economics rather than historians of economic thought exclusively, confront a professional academic environment different from that of even a decade ago. This requires a more technically oriented presentation of the history of economics and not the approach to Spiegel's book. Technique has become, if not de rigeur, then increasingly required and prevalent in teaching economics. First, this trend reflects the changing nature of the discipline itself, and, second, it shows the change in the role of economics and economics departments as part of academic institutions' curriculum.

Economics departments, as most in the field know, are often located for administrative and curriculum reasons in schools of business. The growth of business majors in undergraduate and graduate education has increasingly reduced the role of economics departments to providing service-type courses. The history of economics is unlikely to be among these offerings unless it is the province of a senior lecturer whose course has an established tradition. Even then, the course is not likely to be required. The history of thought is more likely to survive as part of the curriculum if a viable link can be established with the rest of the business curriculum, while ensuring that it also appeals to liberal arts majors. Thus, the way in which the history of economic thought is presented at the textbook level is far more reflective of Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947) than it is of Schumpeter's Development of Economic Analysis (1954). Samuelson's Foundations (1947) has substantially shaped twentieth-century economics, its mathematical mode of expression penetrating into our introductory courses. Most intermediate microeconcomics and macroeconomics texts require students to have mathematical skills to master required exercises. Given this type of grounding in a basic economics course, focusing on the historical development of contemporary analytical tools - a sort of turning back of the intellectual clock that may well start with a review of the so-called laws of economics - seems a more meaningful approach to teaching the history of economics than teaching intellectual history to a generation of students who have little or no knowledge of the history of Western civilization. Sadly, purely descriptive texts in the history of economics have decreasing commercial value to today's hard-hit textbook industry. Publishers are increasingly combining or phasing out their textbook orientation as is the case, for example, with R.D. Irwin.

As historians of economic thought, we rejoice that Duke University Press rescued Spiegel's fine work from the oblivion it surely would have encountered when Prentice-Hall decided against its commercial value after the second edition. Texts that are more analytically oriented than Spiegel's hit their marks in the 1970s and 1980s and continue to hold sway into the present.

Another book in the history of thought for which we are indebted to Spiegel in an editorial capacity is The Development of Economic Thought: Great Economists in Perspective (1952). This edited work antedated by some 20 years the textbook The Growth of Economic Thought punished in 1971. This volume is unique in that it offers an editor's introduction as well as reprinted comments and evaluations by economists on the work of other economists. This encapsulation of its content may strike the reader as having little to recommend it, but I consider this volume conceptually quite brilliant and a tremendous undertaking requiring translations from several languages, an endeavor to which Spiegel contributed in no small measure. As Kenneth Boulding noted in his brief forword to this volume, "he [Spiegel] approached this collection with skepticism and finished it with enthusiasm." I can only concur with Boulding's later assessment and say that this is one of those rare books with which I would not want to part. I often have occasion to return to some of its enlightening selections, ranging from Aristotle on Socrates, to Viner on Marshall, Haberler on Schumpeter, and Colin Clark on Pigou. I recommend unequivocally that scholars of economic history add it to their personal libraries if they should ever chance upon copies.

IV

Bostaph on The Growth of Economic Thought as a Primary Teaching Resource

I did not know Henry Spiegel personally. I never met him, never spoke to him, never heard him speak, and never corresponded with him, but still he was a companion. I call him a companion because he affected my professional life in at least two ways, both of which were and remain important to me.

The first way Spiegel affected my professional career was actually quite ironic. One year out of graduate school, I cobbled together a paper based on my dissertation. I sent that paper off for comment. The paper concerned the Methodenstreit, and it so happened that a session on Carl Menger was scheduled for the 1978 Annual Meetings of the Atlantic Economic Society. Spiegel was tentatively scheduled to speak on the Methodenstreit but had to bow out at the last minute. Israel Kirzner, who contributed a paper to that session and had seen my paper, suggested that I be called to the podium as a pinch-hitter.

As a result, I began a life long acquaintance with Kirzner and other members of that session, which included Laurence Moss, Karen Vaughn, Richard Wagner, and the late Ludwig Lachmann. My paper was subsequently published as part of the Carl Menger special issue of the Atlantic Economic Journal - still a best seller - and for all this I have Henry Spiegel to thank, at least in absentia.

The second way Spiegel affected my life was through his remarkable book called The Growth of Economic Thought. My college, the University of Dallas, requires a two-semester course sequence on the history of economic thought for all economics majors. We use original sources as much as we can, but for two semesters and two different instructors, with limited time and divergent interests, there is a compelling need for a foundational text that brings together two millennia of intellectual history in a comprehensive and cohesive treatment. We need an encyclopedic, intelligent, and especially even-handed survey of economic thought to provide the context within which the original sources can be brought to life as students read and study them. In my opinion, that is what Spiegel's Growth of Economic Thought provides and is the reason I chose it as our primary text for my department's sequence in history of economic thought.

We continue to use Spiegel's text to this day. I pray that Duke University Press will never let it go out of print - and I do this for the most selfish of reasons. It forms a key part of my liberal arts college economics major curriculum, and there is no replacement for it.

V

Goodwin on the 1976 Re-publication of Spiegel's Growth of Economic Thought

Here I offer some thoughts about Henry Spiegel's marvelous textbook Growth of Economic Thought viewed from the perspective of Duke University and the Duke University Press, which took over the republication of the text from Prentice-Hall. First, I would like to share some thoughts about my own relationship with Spiegel, especially in my role as editor of the journal History of Political Economy (HOPE).

My acquaintance with Spiegel was an unusual one. I never met him in person; yet I corresponded with him often (perhaps several hundred times) over an extended period. My understanding was that Professor Spiegel was not a "joiner" and did not like meetings. He may have attended only one meeting of the History of Economics Society and its predecessor groups. I remember thinking of Professor Spiegel in the 1960s as one of that set of serious and accomplished scholars who remained in our field after the giants (Schumpeter, Robbins, Viner, Spengler, etc.) either had left or showed signs of proximate departure. I placed him with Terrence Hutchison, Ronald Meek, Richard Howey, and a few others who were prepared to work with us, "the young Turks," who included Warren Samuels, Vincent Tarascio, William Grampp, William Allen, and a few others, in our attempts to revive the field through the establishment of a society and publication of an academic journal. Professor Spiegel was a trusted advisor to us and acted as referee on about 60 papers for HOPE. His referee reports were always models of succinct, judicious appraisal. Together they could almost fill a volume. Today, they are preserved in the Duke University Special Collection Library.

One of the charming features of my relationship with Spiegel was that he always sent me picture postcards when he went on those vacations that Mrs. Spiegel fondly refers to later in this article. No referee, let alone an author before or since, has ever engaged in this thoughtful practice. In terms of his publications pursuits, Spiegel submitted one manuscript for consideration to HOPE, which we promptly accepted and published in volume 8, issue 4 and entitled "Adam Smith's Heavenly City."

Memories are notoriously unreliable, but I think I recall an agitated telephone call from Professor Spiegel in 1975 to tell me that The Growth of Economic Thought published in 1971 was about to be taken out of print by Prentice-Hall. What could be done? I said I didn't know but would poke around and get back to him. I contacted the Duke University Press, on whose editorial board I sat, and they asked me to line up some commentators. I cannot recall who they were but I suspect they probably included Warren Samuels and Bob Coats. On the basis of that review, the Duke University Press did a rather simple cloth reprint in 1976 of the Prentice-Hall book. This reprint sold a 3,500 copies by 1982. In 1982, Duke University Press brought out a second modestly revised edition in paperback that sold 5,896 copies. A third more extensively revised edition was published in 1992, which sold 4,600 copies to date and was reprinted most recently in December 1996. Like many others, I recall writing Professor Spiegel with suggestions for changes that might be incorporated. Duke University Press informed me that they intend to keep selling as long as buyers keep buying. In fact, there have been inquiries from China about the possibility of a Chinese edition. Undoubtedly, the question will arise before long about whether a new revision should be undertaken by some young successor to Professor Spiegel.

I have always recommended The Growth of Economic Thought to students, and I consult it often myself. This book provides an especially comprehensive, balanced, well-written, scholarly coverage of our field. Its method is eclectic, paying attention to both external and internal factors. It informs and challenges students, and they like it very much. One of the distinctive features of the text is the extensive bibliography that will start any student on the way to a successful term paper. Perhaps most important in my view is that in this book there are no concealed agendas inserted by the author - at least none that offend me! Here the history of economics speaks for itself and through three editions at least fifteen thousand students have been privileged to listen.

VI

Henry Spiegel as a Husband, and Companion

I offer here a few personal recollections about my life with Henry, which began in May 1947 - six weeks after I arrived in the United States from France with my two young boys, Richard and Robert. Henry and I met in this country, married, and moved to Madison, WI for a teaching job Henry got one summer. My thoughts were that we would spend time on the beach, rent a sailboat, and enjoy ourselves. I had no idea that Henry had a job that demanded his time 48 hours per day. His principal activities in those early years of our marriage consisted of teaching and writing a book on the Brazilian economy. Gradually, I accepted the idea that I would have to share Henry with his devotion to his other love, economics.

Henry amassed a wonderful library. He had such a love for books... and more books still! Every week he made his rounds at secondhand bookstores and brought home at least six, maybe as many as eight dusty books. Subsequently our home library filled two large rooms and overflowed in the hall. I thought that Henry either would have to sell the collection, or we would have had to move out of the house to make room for more books. Ultimately, he sold the collection to a collector from Holland who traveled to our home to pack them up and ship them back. Within two years, however, Henry had accumulated a second library filling up the same amount of space.

Henry and I shared a great love for music and we attended many operas and concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington as well as other performances when we traveled in Europe. We also loved long nature walks. We used to walk in a nearby woods at least an hour a day up until a month before he passed away. We used to go to the Trapp family lodge in Stowe, VT each summer, where we were able to take even longer nature walks. I recall that during one of our walks Henry showed his fearlessness in the face of dangerous wildlife when we came upon a large bear. My reaction was to retreat. Not Henry; he wielded his walking stick and an umbrella in a threatening way until the bear disappeared and we could continue on our way. Henry showed he knew how to handle a "bear" market.

Life with Henry was never dull. He loved good humor, interesting discussion, splendid vacations, nature walks, classical music, and fine food. As we grew older together so did our bond of love.

Notes

1. The list comprises Alexander Gerschenkron (1904-1978), Gottfried Haberler (1900-1995), Frank Hahn (1925-), Friedrich August Hayek (1899-1992), Albert O. Hirschmann (1915-), Fritz Machlup (1902-1983), Jacob Marschak (1898-1977), Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977), and Richard A. Musgrave (1910-).

2. Since then, I have undertaken two or perhaps three strands of sequels: One of them is represented by New Horizons in Economic Thought (1992) and American Economists of the Late Twentieth Century (1996), which bring the task of examining contemporary economists, however incompletely, increasingly into the present. The two volumes are celebrations of diversity in economics. A possible third is in the earliest planning stage. The second is represented by volume 1 of Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, entitled "The Craft of the Historian of Economic Thought," and by a sequel that Steven Medema and I are currently editing. In both, accomplished historians of economic thought summarize, interpret, and critique the work of other leading historians of economic thought. The third is the collection that Medema and I have published, The Foundations of Research in Economics: How Do Economists Do Economics (1996). This collection does not have the economists-on-other-economists characteristics, but it does have both contemporariness, self-reflection, and celebration of diversity. See also Samuels 1997.

References

Bell, R. (1953), A History of Economic Thought, New York: Ronald Press.

Blaug, M. (1962), Economic Theory in Retrospect, Homewood, IL.: Richard D. Irwin.

Blaug, M. (1985), Great Economists since Keynes, Brighton: Wheatsheaf

Canterbury (1976), The Making of Economics

Eckland R. B. and R. F. Hebert (1975). A History of Economic Theory and Method, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fellner, W. (1960), Modern Economic Analysis, New York: McGraw Hill.

Hagemann, H. (ed.) (1997), Zur deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschafttichen Emigration nach 1933, Marburg: Metropolis.

Hagemann H. and Krohn (1998) (eds.), Handbuch der deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emirgration nach 1933, 2 vols., Munich: Saur.

Haney, L. (1941), History of Economic Thought, New York: Macmillan.

Heimann (1945), History of Economic Doctrines, New York: Oxford U. Press.

Medema, S. and Samuels, W. J. (1996), The Foundation of Research in Economics: How Do Economists Do Economics, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.

Medema, S. and Samuels, W. J. (in preparation), Research in the History of Economics

Musgrave, R. A. (1996), "Public Finance and Finanzwissenschaft Traditions Compared," Finanzarchiv, Vol. 53, pp. 145-93.

Musgrave, R. A. (1997), 'Crossing Traditions', in Hagemann (1997), pp.63-79.

Pribram (1983), History of Economic Reasoning, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press.

Rima, I. (1967), Development of Economic Analysis, Homewood, ILL: Richard D. Irwin.

Samuels (1992), New Horizons in Economic Thought, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.

Samuels (1996), American Economists of the Late Twentieth Century

Samuels, W. (1998), "Henry William Spiegel," in H. Hagemann, C.-D. Krohn (eds.), Handbuch der deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933, 2 vols., Munich: Saur.

Samuelson, P. (1947) Foundations of Economic Analysis, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press.

Samuelson, P. A. (1988), "The Passing of the Guard in Economics," Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 319-29.

Schumpeter, J. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford U. Press

Spiegel, H. W. (1949), The Brazilian Economy, Philadelphia: Blakiston.

Spiegel, H. W. (1952), The Development of Economic Thought: Great Economists in Perspective, New York: Wiley.

Spiegel, H. W. (1960), The Rise of American Economic Thought. Philadelphia: Chulton

Spiegel, H. W. (1984). Contemporary Economists in Perspective. 2 vols. Greenwich, JAI Press.

Spiegel, H. W. (1971), The Growth of Economic Thought, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Spiegel, H. W. (1992), "Economics," in J. Ischel and S. Pinsker (eds.), Jewish-American History and Culture: An Encyclopedia, New York and London:

Spiegel, H. W. (1997), "Refugee Economists and the Mathematization of Economics," in Hagemann (1997), pp. 343-52.

BOOK NOTES

G. R. Searle, 1998. Morality and the Market in Victorian Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Index. 300 pp. ISBN 0-19-820698-4.

The abstract doctrines of free market economics provided a pure universal theory of economic development, to which nineteenth century economists such as J. S. Mill and N. Senior subscribed. Still there was a need for a more practical political economy to deal with the perceived abuses and immoralities of everyday life. The author of this full length treatment of ethical discussion in Victorian Britain provides us with precisely such an account of this more practical literature. Searle draws upon a plethora of original sources published between 1830 and 1870 to weave together an immensely interesting account of how the general abstract principles of economics had to be modified and made compatible with community intervention and government legislation when it came to the most practical and noticeable problems of the day. The problems discussed in this work include poverty, business speculation, adulterated food, slavery, prostitution and the extended subjection of women and children, pornography, gaming, bankruptcy laws and reform, and the public call for state-imposed temperance over wanton drunkenness. All these issues center on "the conflicting imperatives of morality and economics" (p. 251). One point was clear to nearly all those who addressed the burning social and moral problems of Victorian society, "market competition, by itself, had not provided a satisfactory answer to the complex dilemmas thrown up by an advanced commercial society" (p. 252).

Searle surveys a sizeable part of the British economic literature, especially the writings of J. S. Mill and H. Spencer mining the many parts and sections of their work where they struggle to apply the insights of modern economists to the practical moral problems of their day. To this voice Searle adds to our understanding of the novelists and interpretations of how their characters address characteristic approaches to these import problems: we read passages from W. M. Thackeray, C. Dickens, and H. Martineau. Of special interest to students of economic sociology is the identification of a particular genre of Victorian literature not often discussed or identified. Here authors such as C. Babbage, E. Baines, A. Ure, and W. Felkin discuss developments in particular regions of Britain and celebrate the achievements of those rich businessmen who with paternalist zeal have striven to make that region better by funding libraries, charitable works, schools, civic buildings, and so on. In these accounts an older eighteenth-century ideal of personal honor and paternalism is brought to the surface and asked to temper the worst abuses of profit-making. While most paid homage to the principle found in A. Smith's Wealth of Nations that consumption was the great end of all human industry, most practical discussion found a place for the industrious and intentional human pursuit of mercantile honor and community responsibility thereby raising the issue of who indeed is the ultimate consumer when it comes to production (p. 270). In the end even the apostle of unrestrained competition, H. Spencer caved in and finally admitted that "a system of keen competition carried on ... without adequate moral restraint, [is] very much a system of commercial cannibalism" (p. 101). With Spencer conceding this point the gulf between the abstract principles of economic reasoning and the practical application of those principles requiting government intervention and a civil service insulated from the buying and selling of jobs could not have been wider. As a ploy to perhaps expand market sales, this book ends with some jibes against "Thatcherism" and how this political development has thrown opened once again in the twentieth-century the same litany of problems discussed in the nineteenth. This book is a first-rate study and well worth a careful reading.

COPYRIGHT 1998 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group