Conclusion
Most of the books and articles published by theorists of the GHSE demonstrated that many of them were great savants. Their readers would marvel at their extensive knowledge in a variety of areas, including literature, the
natural sciences, geography, history, politics, culture, and traditions.
These great savants and scholars saw political economy as the science of the laws of development for both the economy and economic life, which could be used to effectively achieve common welfare. Their goals included finding better ways to describe people’s ‘economic nature and economic wants, to investigate the laws and the character of the institutions which are adapted to the satisfaction of these wants, and the greater or less amount of success by which they have been attended’ (Roscher 1878V1, 111). They believed that since the economic and societal organization of each historical stage is different than those of others, there cannot be an absolutely valid system that should be universally adhered to by all forms of societal organization across history. Accordingly, they called for the complete abandonment of universal economic laws, individualistic assumptions, the laissez-faire doctrine, and highly abstract ahistorical deductive methods, all of which were promoted by classical economics. Adherents of the GHSE also rejected the classical view that political economy was a value-free discipline. In fact, they believed that economic progress and ethics complemented one another.Theorists of GHSE addressed the common needs of all social classes by trying to achieve general welfare and national solidarity via the historical inductive method, methodological collectivism, and ethical economics. In fact, they ended up changing the method of investigation in political economy by collecting empirical data and dedicating themselves to historical and statistical studies.
Additionally, they deemed state reforms, regulations, and policies as indispensable tools for the development of the national economy, which was crucial for the achievement of common welfare. In fact, all state reforms, regulations, and policies were supposed to be evaluated based on historical studies, statistical analyses, and ethical judgments to ensure that they would contribute to the achievement of common welfare. Furthermore, since the development of the national economy was dependent on a country’s natural resources and human capital, theorists of the GHSE not only valued material investments aimed at improving productivity and the effective management of natural resources, they also advocated for the improvement of human capital via the provision of public education and training. They also supported positive state interventions designed to ‘enforce provisions for public health,’ regulate ‘production and transport,’ ‘protect weaker members of society,’ ‘guarantee the safety of earnings,’ promote ‘intellectual and aesthetic culture,’ improve working conditions, and so on (Ingram 1888, 128). Ultimately, their efforts played a major role in establishing the original foundations of the modern welfare state, particularly those of some members of the YHS.For most of the 19th century, the GHSE was the great stimulating force of political economy that broadened the scope of economics and attracted the attention and interest of international students and academics. However, since the dominance and inf luence of the GHSE started to decline in the early 20th century, little or no attention has been paid to the important contributions that this school of thought has made to the development of the discipline of
An Overview of the Fundamental Features of the GHSE 81 economics. At the same time, it is not overly surprising that the discipline of economics has neglected the role of the GHSE in its development in this way, since most economists of the 20th and 21st centuries have failed to value the importance of learning from the history of economic thought and the history of economics.
Notes
1 Roscher (1878V1, 87) defined political economy as ‘the science which has to do with the laws of the development of the economy of a nation, or with its economic national life.’
2 https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/aufsaetze/2012/ HZ_201201-01.pdf.
3 https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/aufsaetze/2012/ HZ_201201-01.pdf.