Introduction

The German Historical School of Economics (GHSE) was known by many names, including the Realistic School, die historische Schule der Nationalokonomie (the Historical School of Economics), Geschichtliche Methode der Nationalokonomie (Historical Method of Economics), Neupreussische Nation- alokonomie (Neo-Prussian School of Economics), and the Historical-Ethical School of Economics (Cunningham 1894, Jevons 1876, Schmoller 1902, St.

This chapter begins by discussing cameralism during its formative years in order to provide some insight into the original intellectual sources of the GHSE, as well as the reasons why classical theory was undermined in Germany during the dominance of the GHSE. In doing so, it occasionally presents some of the main contributors to cameralism. It also explains two fundamental com­ponents of cameralist science: police science, or public administration, and economic science. Next, cameralist views on the role of the state, econom­ics, the development of statistics, and the role of moral and ethical values in the achievement of the common good are explored, so as to demonstrate the origins of some of the fundamental features of the GHSE. This chapter also briefly identifies and describes some of the theorists of the GHSE who were inf luenced by cameralism. However, it does not concentrate on the divergent views held by cameralists, as its contributors and adherents were not unanimous about the exact contents and components of cameralism and cameralist science; rather, it attempts to identify and explain some of the common ideas that they defended.

A Brief History of Cameralism, Its Features, and Goals

Cameralism, which was ‘the German Mercantilism,’ emerged in the German-speaking regions of Europe in the 16th century and subsequently vanished by the middle of the 19th century (Haney 1915, 113). During that time, it had a significant inf luence on the development of philosophical, social, political, and administrative thinking. In fact, it could be said that cameralism contained the ‘germs of all the subsequent social science and gov­ernmental practice in Germany’ (Small 1923A, 159). However, most of its development as an economic science (Wirtschaftswissenschaft') was achieved in the 18th century (Raeff 1975, 1232). This was strongly related to the fact that German territories witnessed the existence of ‘some 300 German-speaking kingdoms, duchies, free cities, and tiny principalities’ (Balabkins 1988, 13). Since their survival was dependent on the strength of their neighbors, these small states focused on establishing ‘strong bureaucracies, run by officials’ who obtained their degrees in Kameralwissenschaft (ibid.).

The term cameralism was derived from the Latin word ‘camera’ (Kammer), which refers to ‘the royal treasure chamber’ (Neff 1950, 62). Initially, the chamber was actually the place where ‘the royal income was stored’ (Haney 1915, 113). Over time, its meaning and purpose were progressively modified to make the term less literal, and the chamber eventually became ‘synony­mous with finance’ (Roscher 1878, 95). At the end of the Middle Ages, ‘most German countries’ possessed ‘an institution called the Council (Kammer) whose province it was to administer the public domain, and to watch over regal rights’ (ibid.: 96).

Other tasks performed by the territorial chambers included attending to ‘the local treasuries’ and collecting ‘the taxes and the income from the royal domains’ (Dorn 1932A, 84). That is to say, they were ‘generally responsible for the prompt and accurate collection of the budgetary income’ (ibid.). Ter­ritorial chambers also observed:

the movements of commerce, kept in constant touch with local mer­chants, superintended the fairs in the larger cities, informed themselves on the needs of consumers at home and in the neighboring states, and went out in search of markets for Prussian manufacture.

(ibid.)

Essentially, these chambers served as the administrative cores of the German principalities, as they were responsible for managing public affairs and pub­lic finances, designing economic policies, and safeguarding the legal rights of the people. Ultimately, people started to call members of the territorial chamber cameralists, which resulted in their ‘political, juristic, technical and economic’ ideas becoming known as cameralism (Haney 1915, 114). Territorial chambers became vital centers of the ‘bureaucratic mechanism’ of cameralism (Dorn 1932A, 83).

Cameralists were essentially trying to find ways to improve the economy, which was in severe distress due to the fact that the German territories served as the theater for catastrophic battles, sieges, and military occupations during the Thirty Years War (1618—1648), the Swedish-Polish War (1655—1660), and a Swedish invasion (1674—1679). The resulting destruction of cities, villages, roads, populations, farmland, commerce centers, factories, and workshops led to unprecedented hardships for the people of the region for more than a cen­tury. In particular, the destruction of roads interrupted domestic and foreign trade, while also raising prices for land, houses, food, manufactured products, and imported goods. Furthermore, the significant loss of population during the many wars brought about severe labor shortages in the region. Con­sequently, economic stagnation was persistent, as not enough people were available to work in the production of goods or in the agriculture sector, which brought some villages to the brink of famine.

The destructive outcomes brought by the Thirty Years War and other conflicts continued to be felt in the German territories in the 18th century, which led cameralists to respond by developing social and economic policies to address these deficiencies. They specifically advocated for positive actions in the social and economic lives of people on the part of the ruler aimed at preventing the further impoverishment of the country during peacetime. Their main objective was to come up with strategies that would improve the economic and social conditions of people, while simultaneously account­ing for the poor and limited economic resources of the German territories, which lacked colonies, foreign trade, and fertile soil. As such, they focused their efforts on finding ways to increase the revenues of the state, which were directly related to improving the capacities and skills of human capital and better managing natural resources and domestic industries.

In the 17th century and early decades of the 18th century, cameralist of­ficials did not receive any formal training on how to improve the economic and social conditions of people, because cameralism was originally a field of jurisprudence, while the cameralists themselves were jurists. Consequently, they were not particularly skilled in other disciplines of the social and natural sciences. This state of affairs led to Friedrich Wilhelm I (1688—1740), who was the King of Prussia from 1713 to 1740, being unsatisfied with ‘incompe­tent cameral officials’ in the areas of economy, finance, and trade (Wakefield 2005, 311). In order to reorganize society in a way that advanced the science of the state, or the science of governing (Staatswissenschaften), and achieve economic prosperity and the general or collective welfare (also referred to as the ultimate ends of the state, the common good, or the general or common happiness of society), the king thought that it was necessary for current and future cameralist officials to become familiar with important details about the territories that comprised the kingdom, in addition to other relevant in­formation in the areas of economy, finance, and trade.

Friedrich Wilhelm I played a major role in the expansion of intellectual life in Prussian cities, which ‘marked the beginning of the academic development of cameralism and Polizei as sciences to be taught to future state officials’ (Tribe 1984, 263). That is to say, it was during his reign that cameralism became a new and independent discipline that was taught at Prussian univer­sities known as cameralist science (Kameralwissenschaften) (Small 1923A, 160). For instance, he took ‘the important step of founding, at Halle and Frankfurt on the Oder, special chairs of economy and cameralistic science’ (Roscher 1878, 96). Specifically, in 1727, Friedrich Wilhelm I established professorial chairs for Oeconomie, Policey und Kammer-Sachen at the University of Halle,¹ which became the leading center of cameralism (Tribe 1984, 263). That same year, professorial chairs for Oeconomie, Policey und Kammer-Sachen were also established at Frankfurt University. By the end of the 18th century, almost every German and Austrian university offered lectures on Cameralia, Oeco- nomica, and Polizeisachen in order to help the chambers respond to the needs of the German territories.

Cameralist science was created as a new academic discipline with the intention of providing future state officials or cameral officials (Kammerbe- dienten) with solid foundations in public administration, finance, econom­ics, commerce, statistics, technology, and politics (Parry 1963). Additionally, students at the universities were expected to master ‘mineralogy, applied mathematics, technical chemistry and other sciences,’ so as to acquire the necessary knowledge and training that would allow them to manage the various natural resources of the state, including fisheries, mines, agricultural lands, and forests (Wakefield 2005, 313). By teaching cameralist science to university students, ‘future ambassadors and ministers’ would not be com­plete ‘strangers in any part of the housekeeping of the state’ (Small 2001, 253—254). Instead, these important state officials would understand that ‘all affairs of state have an inseparable inf luence upon one another and an inter­connection with one another’ (ibid.: 254).

In the second half of the 18th century, the principal purpose of Prus­sian universities became to ‘train future civil servants in Cameralism’ (Dorn 1932B, 270). In fact, a majority of ‘civil servants had studied at one or more of the Prussian universities’ by the end of that century (ibid.). After graduating, they integrated themselves into some of the leading classes of Prussian society (ibid.: 270—273). More precisely, these cameralists played a major role in the Prussian bureaucracy, which was for ‘many decades the most creative force in Prussian history... this bureaucracy not merely reformed itself but adapted the Prussian state to the conditions of modern life’ (Dorn 1931, 404).

Despite the fact that cameralists were not in full agreement on all issues, they played a major role in developing the science of economic policy and finding remedies for ‘economic evils’ (Haney 1915, 114). They systemized public administration to better serve the king in his pursuit of common wel­fare (i.e., common happiness) (Jackson 2005, 1294). Ultimately, they ended up developing rules and regulations that were ‘political, juristic, technical, and economic’ (Neff 1950, 62). In fact, their work was widely accepted as ‘a blueprint for governance in early modern Germany’ (Wakefield 2009, 2, 4). The following sections discuss some of the main contributors to the cam- eral sciences and the role of the state and moral norms in cameralism. They also explain two fundamental components of the cameralist science: police science, or public administration (Polizeiwissenschaft), and economic science (Wirtschaftswissenschaft).

The Main Contributors to Cameralism

The original ideas of cameralism can be ‘traced in the thought of Lutherand of Ossa (1506—1556),’ George Obrecht (1547—1612), ‘Bornitz and Klock (1583— 1655),’ and Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff (1626—1692), all of whom highly valued ‘money and a dense population, and placed great confidence in gov­ernment regulation’ (Haney 1915, 115). However, Seckendorff, who studied philosophy, jurisprudence, and history at the University of Strasburg, was the most well known among these early cameralists. In fact, his two books, Der Teutsche Fursten Staat (1655) and Der Christen Staat (1685), played significant roles in the development of cameralistic practices and thinking (Small 2001, 61). Seckendorff accepted the state as a moral entity that had an obligation to achieve the common good by promoting the development of the agricultural sector, supporting small businesses, and prohibiting monopolies.

Philipp Wilhelm von Hornigk (1638—1712), who studied law, was also among the important early contributors to cameralism (Haney 1915, 118). In fact, his Osterreich uber alles wenn es nur will (1684), which mainly focused on cameralist policies, was ‘one of the best known of the Kameralistic writ­ings’ (Haney 1915, 118). It was first published ‘anonymously in Gottingen in 1684, and reached a total of 16 editions but no translations, and.. the book essentially remained in print for 100 years’ (Reinert and Reinert 2009, 21). Hornigk defended the autonomy of the nation. As such, he attributed a great deal of importance to the development of the agriculture sector for the purpose of achieving self-sufficiency in food production. He also advocated for the proper care and cautious use of natural resources, so as to improve the economic situation of the German territories. In general, he argued that:

the inhabitants of the country should make every effort to get along with their domestic products, to confine their luxury to these alone, and to do without foreign products so far as possible (except where great need leaves no alternative, or if not need, widespread, unavoidable abuse, of which Indian spices are an example).

(Neff 1950, 84)

Christian Wolff (1679—1754) was also accepted as one of the most important contributors to cameralism. In fact, it was believed that Wolff’s Law of Nations played a key role in the development of cameralism (Backhaus 2009B, 5). Theorists of the GHSE also recognized the significant part that he played in the development of political economy in Germany. In his work, Wolff em­phasized the importance of perfection while also highlighting the role of the paternalistic state in ensuring and maintaining the conditions of perfection. He also underscored the importance of the formation of society and the state in the achievement of perfection. Wolff (1750, 3) believed that people came together ‘to form a society, with no other view but to be in a condition with joint powers to promote a common good, and to defend themselves against any assaults of an enemy.’

Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi (1717—1771), one of the leading German political economists² of his time, was also known as a major contributor to cameralism. He was also widely recognized as ‘the most prolific writer of all economists in any language, publishing a total of 67 books of which 8 works were translated into five languages’ (Reinert 2009, 33). Justi studied ‘law and cameral sciences in Wittenberg and Jena’ (Backhaus 2009A, XI). In ‘1750 he was called to a chair “Cameral Sciences and Rhetorics” at the new Theresian Academy of Knights in Vienna,’ which was established in 1746 (ibid.). The Theresian Academy was intended to be ‘the institution where knights, typi­cally destitute nobility, were supposed to be trained’ in public administration (ibid.: 4). Subsequently, Justi ended up becoming an eminent professor of cameral science at Austrian and German universities. Outside of academia, Justi also became:

an economic advisor to governments, a publisher and organizer of trans­lations (Ubersetzungsunternehmer), a personal national research council in several fields, a manager of government investments, a prospector of mines, and an entrepreneur of last resort on behalf of the State.

(Reinert 2009, 34)

In these various roles, he had a major inf luence in ‘shaping economic and particularly industrial policies of the Habsburg monarchy in the second half of the 18th century’ (Chaloupek 2009, 149).

Justi’s book Staatswirthschaft (1755), which contained his main work on cameralistic sciences, focused on ‘political and economic management,’ as well as ‘provisions for the good order of social life’ (Tribe 2018, 48). This book was inf luenced by works of Christian Wolff as were a number of his other publications. In fact, Justi and Wolff shared many similar views on various subjects, including the role of the state, moral and ethical judgments, and common/general happiness (gemeinschaftliche Gluckseligkeit). However, many regarded Justi as ‘the greatest of the German Cameralists,’ given that he laid the foundation of modern economic policy, public finance, public ad­ministration, and business management (Monroe 1951, 378, Neff 1950, 65). He essentially perfected cameralistic science, meaning that he systematized the science of economic policy, public finance, and public administration, thereby helping to solidify the scientific status of cameralism (Neff 1950, 65).

The development of cameralism continued with the lectures and text­books of Joseph von Sonnenfels (1732—1817), an Austrian jurist who was ‘appointed in 1763 to the newly founded chair of police and cameralistic sciences at the University of Vienna,’ where he taught Policey und Kamer- alwissenschaft (Tribe 2018, 48). In those classes, Sonnenfels relied on ‘Justi’s Staatswirtschaft (1755) as a textbook until he published his own “Grundsatze der Polizey, Handlung und Finanz” [Principles of Police, Commercial and Financial Science] (3 vol., 1765—1776),’ which contained his main work on cameralism (Chaloupek 2009, 149).

Other contributors to the development of cameralism included Johann Joachim Becher (1635—1682), Theodor Ludwig Lau (1670—1740), Julius Albert von Rohr (1688—1742), Wilhelm Freyherr von Schroder (1640—1688), Justus Christoph Dithmar (1677—1737), Georg Heinrich Zincke (1692—1768), Johann Peter Sussmilch (1707—1767), Jakob Friedrich Freiherr von Bielfeld (1717-177), Joachim Georg Darjes (1714-1791), and Christian Daniel Voss (1761-1821). Despite some differences between their respective views, all of them supported a strong state and the implementation policies and pro­gram that promoted the industrial and economic advancement of German­speaking territories. Many of the ideas and policies put forth by these thinkers played instrumental roles in overcoming various economic problems, thereby improving the social and economic conditions of the people and contributing to the achievement of common welfare. Furthermore, all of them ended up playing crucial roles in the early development of political economy.

Cameralism and the Role of the State

According to cameralists, human beings could not live in isolation; they needed to reside in a community, which made the existence of the state a necessity (Rath 1940, 85). They regarded the state as a unification of all members of a big family, where the interests of each family member had to be reconciled with those of the state. In particular, Justi (1951, 379) explained that the state was ‘a society of men who occupy a considerable portion of the surface of our earth’ that were ‘united with a view to their common welfare’ and ‘placed a supreme authority over themselves for this purpose.’ Similarly, Wolff (1750, 3) emphasized that ‘men came to form a society’ that was unified under the supreme power of the state in order to achieve a ‘common Good’ or common happiness, which ‘comprises the highest good.’ Since common happiness was desired by both the rulers and the ruled, the latter chose to co­operate with each other, while also allowing themselves to be guided by the state, in order to achieve it. According to Wolff, common happiness required the attainment of physical, material, intellectual, and spiritual perfection. Generally speaking, cameralists believed that the concept of happiness in­cluded but was not limited to elements like justice, fairness, the improvement of living standards, the practice of ethical values, pride in one’s work, train­ing, and education.

In order to understand the types of public policies and programs that could make people happy, cameralists studied the meaning of happiness for both individuals and the community based on the views of different civilizations and empires. Justi argued that there were many rulers across history that did not care about the achievement of common happiness. In some of those instances, ‘instead of being used for the common happiness, state’s revenues’ were ‘often wasted,’ ‘used with short sighted niggardliness,’ ‘applied at the wrong point for the best results,’ or ‘unsystematically administered’ (Small 2001, 329). Cameralists were of the opinion that understanding historical developments ‘served as thinking devices with the ambition of improving existing state practice in fields such as education, state administration, poor relief, elder care, military training and road building,’ for the purpose of achieving common happiness (Miller 2020, 130).

According to cameralists, happiness was not an individualistic or egoistic concept. To the contrary, they believed that the happiness of any segment of the population was dependent upon the happiness of the whole population and vice versa (Rath 1940, 94). In other words, achieving common happiness requires the unity of all parts of the whole, referring to the unity of multiple individual wills. Given that each human being aims to achieve his own hap­piness, when:

many human beings combine their wills, and resign to this combined will the use of their energy, i.e., when they set over themselves a supreme power, and subordinate their particular will to it, there can be no other intent than that each identifies his own happiness with the happiness of the whole society.

(Small 2001, 344)

That essentially means achieving common happiness necessitates that the interests, wills, and ends of individuals are reconciled with the common interest, will, and ends of society. Even though cameralists defended the unity of will, they were not advocating for the elimination of free will. They recognized the importance of free will in achieving one’s own perfection, which is also known as the highest development of individuality.

The semantics of common happiness, which was a very comprehensive concept of welfare, played a central part in defining the role of the cameralist state. For cameralists, it was the duty of the state to contribute to the achieve­ment of common happiness by directing society toward the unity of multiple individual wills (Rath 1940, 88). They were of the view that the state must prudently and constantly improve the welfare of people through the legal framework, economic policies, and the establishment of adequate institutions of society. In fact, all cameralists stressed that the state can be the only entity to possess the supreme authority to regulate and implement policies if com­mon happiness was to be achieved. In particular, Sonnenfels was of the opin­ion that the achievement of ‘general happiness’ through good governance was ‘the object of all states’; in fact, he thought that this should be ‘their perpetual aim’ (Small 2001, 419). Justi (1951) also believed that achieving common hap­piness in a civil society necessitated a role for the state. With that in mind, he identified some of the specific sources of evil and unhappiness in a society, which included a lack of good education for the youth, ‘the scarcity of food in the country, or the defective impulse to perform remunerative work, the op­pression of the land under heavy taxation and other wrongs of government’ (Small 2001, 284). In fact, Justi (1951, 396) maintained that all ‘organizations, and institutions of the state’ had to derive their goals and objectives (i.e., raison d’etre) from the great purpose of all civil societies, which is to safe­guard the welfare of the people, in part through the elimination of sources of evil and unhappiness. Accordingly, he regarded any state with ‘any institution or organization that conflicts with this great purpose’ as being ‘monstrous in form and structure’ (ibid.).

Wolff (1750, 3) believed that the achievement of happiness, which would lead people toward ‘greater Degrees of Perfection,’ including material, moral, physical, and intellectual perfection, required the state to manage and admin­ister all of the natural and human resources available to the nation. In order to properly manage human resources, Wolff and other cameralists advocated for state investments in programs that would develop and perfect the capacities, talents, and skills of its inhabitants. Nobody would be excluded from these types of state programs that provided people with opportunities to realize the development of their individualities. According to cameralists, as the devel­opment of individuality increases, free will would guide people to perfection, which, in turn, would bring common happiness.

The achievement of common happiness required the ruler to be familiar with many of the specific features of the ruled and his country. That would include possessing precise knowledge about the size, natural resources, key industries, and other geographic features of his country, as well as the history, customs, cultural and religious practices, education, skills, and talents of his people. With this information, the ruler ‘must devote all his effort to put his land and people in a constantly more f lourishing condition of gaining the means of livelihood, and must thus secure for them increasing prosperity’ (Small 2001, 212). More specifically, the constant involvement of the state in the lives of its subjects with the aim of helping them achieve their perfection, which was ‘an avowed and prominent part’ of the cameralistic program, was accepted as a condition for attaining the common happiness of the entire so­ciety (ibid.: 50). For example, the state could regulate all wealth, businesses, natural resources, and different aspects of civil society, provided that those measures contributed to advancing common happiness. Cameralists believed that the government control and regulation of economic and social life for the purpose of achieving common/general happiness/welfare was justified, because without bringing happiness to his subjects, ‘the ruler could not be­come powerful, while without power the ruler was not in a position to secure the welfare of his subjects’ (Tribe 2018, 44). Basically, if the ruler wanted to increase and stabilize his power, he had to look after ‘nothing except welfare’ and happiness for his subjects (Cannan 1929, 14). That means the interests of the ruler and those of his subjects were intertwined (Justi 1760, 43—44). Consequently, harming the interests of the ruler was also detrimental to his subjects and vice versa. For example, if the inhabitants of a particular nation were economically well off, then so too would be the economy of the en­tire country on an aggregate level. Conversely, if the subjects are poor, then the whole country would endure hardship because the ruler cannot extract ‘money from them,’ much like one cannot ‘squeeze water out of a dry sponge’ (Small 2001, 174). Therefore, any factor that negatively impacts people in terms of their well-being, work, health, income, education, and living con­ditions, hindered the achievement of the common good.

According to cameralists, it was up to the ruler to remove any obstacles to the achievement of common happiness, and that required state regulations and investments. As such, cameralists advocated public spending on ‘the salaries and pensions of all civil servants,’ ‘police, and justice bureaus,’ which could play important roles in the achievement of ‘good order’ in society (ibid.: 331). They also defended for public spending on ‘governmental buildings,’ ‘the ec­clesiastical and school systems,’ and ‘the comfort and adornment of the coun­try’ (Small 1923A, 164, 2001, 331). They also defended state interventions to facilitate an ‘adequate ordering of all means of making the land yield support,’ giving ‘special attention to those goods which are most generally necessary, i.e., the products of the field, of grazing, of forestry, of the iron, spinning, weaving, and wool trades’ (Small 2001, 82). Based on the cameralist view, the state was also responsible for the ‘marking of time by bells, and by night watchmen, inns and other places of refreshment, market-places, public con­veyances, aesthetic regulations, parks and pleasure gardens, amusements, etc.’ (ibid.: 372). Furthermore, some cameralists even believed that it fell under the purview of the state to promote the provision of ‘joyful entertainment such as comedies, operas, ballets and other popular plays, in order to make countries delightful to live’ (Kanamori 2009, 112).

The important role that cameralists attributed to the state when it came to facilitating the conditions of common happiness led to them being criticized for elevating the government to the rank of an end in itself. As a result, they were perceived as servants of authoritarian and absolutist states that were opposed to political and economic liberalism. It was even claimed that they contributed to the emergence of ‘a centralized and sophisticated apparatus of public administration designed to serve the absolutist monarchs of Germany and Austria’ (Spicer 1998, 149). Many also regarded the cameralist ruler as a ‘benevolent despot’ (Wagner 2012, 132). As such, many of the reforms and policies proposed by cameralists were perceived as raising ‘the standards which a benevolent despot should adopt’ (Small 2001, 71).

In reality, cameralists were arguing that the ruler did not have natural freedom, meaning that he was not free to simply act as he pleased. They supported placing restrictions on the authority of the ruler, recognizing that his interests would differ or conflict with those of his subjects. In order to prevent the ruler from misusing his power for the purpose of advancing his personal preferences and caprices, cameralists advocated for his actions to be limited by the rule of law. In other words, common happiness could not be achieved by the individual ruling of the king; it required an institutional structure in the form of public laws that the ruler had to strictly obey. These laws could not be changed by the ruler. For example, a ruler could not dras­tically increase taxes in order to improve his own standard of living, because this would end up impoverishing the country in the long run. Furthermore, subjects were ‘entitled to oppose the system of government if there is clear evidence that the state fails to fulfil its ultimate purpose’ (Schmidt am Busch 2009, 420). Justi (1951, 385) raised concerns about corruption and the abuse of state power and authority when he stated:

Men are seldom prudent managers of their own property; they are either spendthrifts or misers, and the difference is simply a question of more or less. How can we feel assured, therefore, that they will be good and prudent managers of property not their own, namely, the property of the state? How can we expect that they will restrain their natural tendencies to extravagance or avarice when managing the property of a stranger, when they never hold these tendencies within bounds in the case of their own property, although they easily foresee that these tendencies will always be accompanied by inconveniences and harmful consequences for themselves?

Justi believed that achieving common happiness required a good ruler whose will has been ‘moderated’ ‘through the guidance of reason’ (Small 2001, 364). The personal wants and desires of the ruler should not influence the require­ments of the common good. Even if the ruler is ‘convinced that his personal will is a good will, a wise ruler will not try to make it his governmental will; e.g., he will not try to impose his religion upon his subjects’ (ibid.). In the event of a conflict between the interests of the ruler and the common inter­ests of the ruled, the ruler must subordinate to the latter, as his responsibility is to make his subjects happy and unite them in the achievement of common happiness (Justi 1760, 45, 46).

The cameralist concept of happiness prioritized freedom, the rights and needs of individuals, and the protection of property rights. According to Justi, ‘freedom, safety of property rights, and prosperous industry’ were ab­solutely necessary in order to have common happiness, and it was the main task of the ruler to ensure that the state possessed ‘the means to assure’ those characteristics (Neff 1950, 65). However, freedom also required that people subject themselves to the laws of the state (Justi 1760, 47, 48). That is to say, individuals were free as long as they obeyed the legal framework. For Son- nenfels, the freedom of the ruled came from ‘their complete identification with the objectives of welfare, security and the common good’ (Tribe 1984, 276). In other words, the freedom of the individuals was ‘subordinated to the dictates of the common good’ (ibid.).

Cameralists believed that people accepted the premise of living under the protection of a ruler in order to enjoy external and internal security, public safety, and the good order of civil life, all of which were necessary for the achievement of common happiness. Meanwhile, any ruler who deprives his:

subjects of the necessaries of life by contributions, and compels them to trench upon their capital, acts directly contrary to the purpose of civil societies; it overturns civil societies at their foundation, and it ceases, therefore, to be a legitimate supreme authority, and becomes tyranny.

(Justi 1951, 389)

In fact, Justi (ibid.: 396) argued that any state that impairs the freedom of its citizens has ‘slight chance of developing a flourishing working class.’ He believed that ‘freedom is certainly included in the welfare and happiness of the citizens; and without it we cannot imagine them happy. To disregard this liberty is likewise prejudicial to the welfare of the state’ (ibid.). Justi maintained that ‘men would have been the most insane fools if they had been willing deliberately to exchange their most precious possession, freedom, for a government under which they would be slaves’ (Small 2001, 340).

Cameralists sought to prevent the emergence of an abusive ruler. For example, Wolff (1750) maintained that it was necessary for the ruler to be a ‘Philosopher King,’ who governed wisely and in accordance with vir­tues, so as to preclude him from abusing his power and infringing upon the freedom and common happiness of his subjects. He specifically stated that ‘either a King must be a philosopher, or a Philosopher King’ to make his subjects happy (Wolff 1750, 9—10). Wolff (1750, 27, 43) believed that philosophy was an absolute necessity for a ruler if ‘civil happiness’ was to be achieved and ‘public security and peace’ were to be preserved. In fact, he was convinced that the affairs of a good government could not be ‘managed without philosophy’ (ibid.: 83). Conversely, he argued that rulers who ‘rea­son unphilosophically’ came up with ‘the very worst’ decisions, actions, and policies (ibid.: 43—44). Similarly, other cameralists had complete faith in a wise ruler who relied on moral values and rational thinking to temper his ambitions and adopt measures that would achieve the conditions of common happiness.

The Police Science (Polizeiwissenschaft)

Polizeiwissenschaft (i.e., police science), derived from the word Polizei, which in turn finds its origins in the Greek term polis, was accepted as the founda­tion of cameralism in the Prussian territories during the 18th century. It dealt with the conduct of people by relying on public institutions and measures that define and ensure the conditions of external and internal security, public safety, and the ‘good order’ of civil life, all of which were necessary for the achievement of common happiness (Tribe 1984, 274). Police science focused on the elimination of crimes, violence, and poverty in order to ensure pub­lic and private security and safety. The state could utilize police science to govern, control, manage, and regulate all available resources (i.e., human and natural) on its territories so as to remove any obstacles to the achievement of safety, security, and good order, which would contribute to economic development and improve living standards. It is important to emphasize that the laws of police science ‘must not contradict moral laws; they must only determine how morally-permissible things can be directed to increase the wealth of the state’ (Haney 1915, 123).

Justi and Sonnenfel played major roles in the ‘systematization’ of police science (Tribe 1984, 275). However, other cameralists also contributed to establishing the rules and norms of police science ‘to the smallest detail,’ so that it could effectively achieve good order, security, and public safety (ibid.: 274). In the end, their efforts led to the establishment of a police science that was like ‘a well-intentioned genius who carefully levels the way for those committed to his care,’ as it:

secures the villages and holdings in which they dwell, and the streets along which they walk; protects the fields that they cultivate, secures their homes against fire and f lood, and they themselves against illness, poverty, ignorance, superstition and immorality; who, even if he cannot prevent all accidents, seeks however to diminish and ease their conse­quences, and offers refuge in time of need to every pauper, casualty or person in need. Its watchful eye is ubiquitous; its helping hand is ever­ready, and we are invisibly surrounded by its unceasing care.

(ibid.)

Since police science aimed to achieve safety and security for society as a whole, cameralists supported universal access to public health care services, because having a healthy population was an important aspect of societal safety and se­curity. To ensure societal health, the state could care for the sick at hospitals or in their own homes by providing various medical services, including surgeries, midwifery, regular checkups, and treatments for specific illnesses or injuries. It could also facilitate the conditions of proper public hygiene and ensure that the streets, ‘water supply,’ and ‘the air’ that people breathed were sufficiently clean (ibid.). Police science was also involved in regulating the quality of food as a condition of safety and security in society. Additionally, it was also responsible for safeguarding the safety of ‘gates, harbors,’ ‘roads, streets, postal systems, bridges, fountains, reservoirs, water-mains,’ and ‘paving’ (Small 2001, 372).

Providing security went beyond protecting people’s lives and ensuring their safety; it also involved safeguarding their private properties. Cameralists be­lieved that guaranteeing the security of private property would contribute to the general welfare of the population. At the same time, however, they were worried that the accumulation of excessive amounts of private property and wealth in the hands of a few individuals could threaten good order and the welfare of the population. In his critique of wealthy individuals, Justi main­tained that some of these people did not become rich through hard and honest work, but rather via corruption and manipulation. He further argued that these types of people were ‘the source of all disorders’ and had the potential to destroy the state (ibid.: 390). Justi also believed that corruption, gambling, and fraudulent bankruptcies could endanger safety, security, and the good order of society, as did a number of other cameralists. However, while police science involved itself in many aspects of social and economic life, it did not directly intervene in the private spheres of individuals by targeting the choices and decisions that they made in their ‘households’ (Tribe 1988, 72).

Cameralism and Economics

In the 18th century, each nation was accepted as ‘a unit, and the interest of each was supposed to be opposed to that of all the rest, as the great object of each of them was to get as much gold and silver as possible at the expense of the others’ (Cannan 1929, 11). At that time, ‘trade between nations was looked on very much as some barbarians are said to have regarded trade in general, not as a method of co-operation but as a sort of tolerated robbery’ (ibid.). In fact, the most important goal of ‘a statesman seemed to be the mak­ing of ingenious arrangements for cheating the foreigner out of some of his gold and silver’ (ibid.). It was during this period of robbery and cheating that cameralism emerged as a science of economic policy that sought to achieve economic development and prosperity.

Cameralism was accepted as a form of ‘mercantilism’ that was ‘organized as a predecessor of a scientific economics’ (Tribe 1984, 265). This is mainly due to the fact that cameralism was inspired by the same sources that nur­tured mercantilism. However, cameralism and mercantilism also had many diverging characteristics on account of the fact that the former was developed according to the particular social, economic, and historical conditions of the Prussian territories, whereas the latter gained prominence among some of the key players on the international scene from the 16th to the 18th centuries, including the English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Mercantilists considered ‘wealth and money identical’ and believed that ‘the great object of a com­munity so to conduct its dealings with other nations as to attract to itself the largest possible share of the precious metals’ (Ingram 1888, 34). That is to say, mercantilism focused purely on increasing ‘the quantity of the precious metals possessed by the nation, either through the agency of mining at home, or by means of foreign trade’ (Roscher 1878, 169). In fact, an emphasis on a positive trade balance meant that international trade was ‘placed at the top of the list of economic activities and agriculture at the bottom’ (Neff 1950, 53). However, it was argued that this ‘view stands and falls with the altogether too limited idea of national wealth,’ as mercantilists neglected the role of de­veloping ‘the agriculture, and to the finer kinds of industry’ (Roscher 1878, 169). Adam Smith (1979, 450) explained that based on mercantilism:

wealth consisted in gold and silver, and that those metals could be brought into a country which had no mines only by the balance of trade, or by exporting to a greater value than it imported; it necessarily became the great object of political economy to diminish as much as possible the importation of foreign goods for home-consumption, and to increase as much as possible the exportation of the produce of domestic industry. Accordingly, mercantilist governments imposed various restrictions on im­portation and encouraged exportation in order to ensure a positive balance of trade. For example, they sought to limit imports by advocating for the imposition of high duties and the prohibition of certain types of foreign mer­chandise being brought into the country. Furthermore, each nation focused on exporting the largest possible quantity of domestic goods, while imposing restrictions on the exportation of precious metals.

Although cameralism and mercantilism shared some similarities, the two systems were far from identical. For instance, cameralists questioned the focus on the accumulation of precious metals as sources of wealth that character­ized the mercantile system. To the contrary, they regarded precious metals as only one part of national wealth. Accordingly, cameralists argued that wealth and state power did not have to be dependent on the acquisition of precious metals. Therefore, it was not necessary to conquest territories in distant lands in order to generate wealth, as ‘the key to wealth was right at home, in local fields, forests, mines and manufactories’ (Wakefield 2005, 319).

Cameralists had little interest in foreign markets and exportation. As such, Prussian territories did not play a prominent role in international trade com­pared to the British, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Part of the reason why cameralists did not focus on international commercial expansion to the same extent as mercantilists was because they prized the development of domestic industry more than ‘their English and French prototypes’ (Neff 1950, 62). They were also concerned that trade with distant territories was fragile, be­cause it could be disrupted by various events like war and harsh weather con­ditions. Cameralists also believed that the importation of foreign goods that could be produced by the domestic economy resulted in ‘the destruction of the community’ and the weakening of the economy, because it drives money out of the country (Small 2001, 112). Accordingly, they sought to limit the consumption of imported goods. That said, they believed that any decisions pertaining to the possible imposition of trade restrictions had to take the necessity of the goods into consideration. For example, restrictions could be placed on the exportation of necessary goods for the purpose of preventing future famines.

Cameralists were particularly opposed to the importation of ‘unnecessary foreign articles of luxury,’ including silk products, coffee, sugar, alcohol, and tobacco, because that would worsen the balance of payment and increase their dependency on other countries (ibid.: 451). Consequently, they advocated for the importation of luxury goods to be limited through the imposition of heavy import duties. Furthermore, instead of supporting the enrichment of a handful of people through international trade, cameralists essentially called for them to be treated as though they were ‘the meanest criminals’ (ibid.: 112). Instead of importing luxury goods, cameralists encouraged the domestic production of such products, even if the Prussian equivalents were of lower quality than the originals. For example, cameralists supported the cultivation of tobacco plants in Silesia and the Ukermark despite their lower quality in order to save the money spent on buying American tobacco. Sim­ilarly, they also supported the development of silk and porcelain industries in Berlin. This is not surprising, given that cameralists believed that ‘it would be better to pay for an article two dollars which remain in the country than only one which goes out’ (Neff 1950, 64).

Since Prussia did not possess colonies, valuable goods to export, or fertile soil, cameralists focused on the development and discovery of new sources of revenue. They also supported the careful management and development of domestic economic activities, given that domestic industry was accepted as be­ing more reliable and easier to protect. In fact, they advocated the application of the methodology of the natural sciences to properly manage domestic re­sources and domestic economic activities, thereby generating great amounts of revenue. That is why it is claimed that cameralism was ‘intimately and ineluctably tied’ to the natural sciences (Wakefield 2005, 319, 2009, 20, 17). In particular, cameralists had complete faith in the ability of natural science to improve the administration and management of the natural resources of the country. For example, the natural sciences were applied to better manage and conserve the soil, mined metals and minerals, water resources, forests, gardens, plants, and livestock.

Cameralists especially prioritized the careful management of natural resources and the agriculture sector. This included efforts to increase the quality and variety of domestically produced agricultural goods. For in­stance, the government could implement measures to encourage the better cultivation of arable land with the intention of limiting the ‘sterilization of the soil, declining value of the revenues of the state, and diminishing popula­tion’³ (Small 2001, 462). Moreover, if the production of a specific agriculture product was deemed to be more important for the welfare of the nation than others, then the state could establish incentives to stimulate its production such as tax breaks for farmers that cultivate the desired crops.

In the agriculture sector, cameralists also supported ‘rules of rotation of crops and other regulations, like the wages of laborers’; the ‘adoption of special standards for particular products, kinds of seed to be used’; and the ‘enactment of ordinances to protect growing crops from thieves’ (ibid.: 375). They also advocated for an active state role in providing farming materials, as well as inputs to production if the individual proprietors were in need of as­sistance. The state provision of veterinary services was also highly supported by cameralists. For example, Sonnefels stressed the point that the ‘direct and indirect consequences of cattle diseases are among the important objects of public attention’ (ibid.: 462). Consequently, he called for measures to help avoid outbreaks of diseases among cattle, including state funding for veter­inary schools and the investigation of such ailments (ibid.). Sonnenfels also argued that the state must help farmers in the event of natural disasters or other misfortunes that caused crops to fail.

Cameralists also prioritized the development of manufacturing industries. They trusted that domestic factories would eventually find ways to improve the quality of their products and lower the cost of production. Some of the measures that they advocated in order to encourage the consumption and production of domestic products included state support for infant industries that fabricated luxury goods and waiving taxes on purchases of domestically produced goods. Cameralists also believed that in order to protect small and medium-sized business owners, ‘the state must take measures to prevent ex­orbitant or oppressive terms in case of loans by individuals’ (ibid.). This is due in part to the fact that when ‘an individual proprietor is too poor properly to cultivate his tract, the state is in danger of suffering loss of a portion of its dues’ (ibid.). Accordingly, cameralists called for the prevention of ‘excessive debt by setting a limit to the amount which may be borrowed’ (ibid.: 463). They also supported the prevention and removal of monopolies. The objec­tive of these types of state actions was to avoid the deterioration of living conditions for poor and weak business owners. That means state interference in the affairs of private enterprises was justified, provided that the policies were designed to achieve common happiness. In other words, cameralists did not regard all economic actions performed by individuals as purely private matters, because every one of them had the potential to affect the overall economy of the nation, as well as common happiness.

Cameralists were also opposed to any economic activities that damaged or overexploited national resources, including the pollution of soil and wa­ter sources, overfishing, deforestation, and excessive mining. This is because they were of the view that activities that overexploited and neglected natural resources ultimately diminished the wealth of the state, which, in turn, in­hibited the achievement of common happiness. For example, Justi underlined that:

forests have long remained in common use and common ownership, and even if forests have over time been transferred into private hands, they remain under the supervision and direction of the state, because they require “special oversight”, or more literally, “special precaution” (“be- sondere Vorsorge”).

(Holzl 2020, 154)

That means cameralists believed that natural resources belonged to society even if they were privately owned. As a result, they supported state regula­tions designed to prevent deforestation and encourage the ‘conservation of forests’ (ibid.). In fact, cameralists relied heavily on state regulations to protect natural resources and maintain ecological equilibrium, as they believed that the state and its population would benefit from the best use, conservation, and protection of nature.

In addition to better managing natural resources, cameralists also focused on taxes as a means of creating revenue for the state. However, they were of the view that taxes occupied a secondary position when it came to being a source of state revenue, behind the funds generated from the careful management of natural resources, mining, manufacturing, and the agricultural sector. They also believed that taxation should be guided by a desire to achieve equality, justice, and general happiness as opposed to the greedy ambitions of the ruler. According to Justi (1951, 396), ‘the general welfare of the state and of the subjects is the great purpose of all civil societies,’ and as such, the level of taxation needed to be reasonable so as to ensure that ‘the welfare of the state and of the subjects and civil freedom suffer no harm.’ He argued that since all inhabitants of a nation have ‘an equal share in the purpose of civil societies, the general welfare, and since they all enjoy equal protection,’ they must all contribute to paying for state expenses (ibid.: 390). However, he was critical of the system of contribution in many states, whereby ‘the richest subjects always contribute least to the expenses of the state; and since nothing can be collected from the poor all the burden of contributions falls upon the middle class’ (ibid.: 391). Justi (1951, 389) was adamant that inhabitants of the state should only be expected to contribute to state revenues if they are ‘in a posi­tion to be able to pay them.’ That meant those citizens with more properties and larger incomes should be expected to make a greater contribution to state revenues. In other words, ‘a tax should be levied in proportion to property, that it should be certain and not arbitrary, that it should be convenient to pay, and that it should be economical to administer’ (Wagner 2012, 130).

Justi (1951, 389) argued taxes could become ‘tyrannical exactions and a violent theft of the property of the subjects’ if they exceeded certain limits. He believed that ‘profit (Gewinnst) should be taxed’ in ‘a way that an agree­able life is still possible and that the substance of income and wealth will not be reduced’ (Peukert 2006, 489). Furthermore, he argued that ‘subjects should not be asked to make contributions except in an amount to balance the inadequateness of the state’s income from other sources to meet necessary expenses’ (Neff 1950, 65). Justi thought that the rate of taxation should ac­count for the economic situations of subjects, the growth of the population, and living standards. Additionally, he believed that the rate of taxation should account for the particular development of industries. Accordingly, cameralists advocated for state credit and tax exemptions for infant industries.

Justi (1951, 389) warned that since rulers are ultimately just human beings, they can be ‘very ingenious in thinking up new needs, when they have such an easy prospect of obtaining what they want.’ The natural outcome of rul­ers resorting to eliciting contributions from the ruled in the form of taxes is destined to be that these taxes are progressively increased, to the extent that they eventually become an ‘intolerable burden to the subjects, resulting in the ruin of both the subjects and the state itself’ (ibid.: 385). However, cameralists were confident that a virtuous ruler would not impose oppressive taxes in order to increase state expenditures. In fact, they claimed that it was immoral and unjust to impose a very high level of taxation that constituted a heavy burden on people and businesses. As such, they maintained that the state should only obtain contributions from its citizens for the purpose of funding necessary expenditures.

Cameralists were always looking for new avenues to generate additional state revenues, including attempts to guide private consumption in a way that would benefit economic growth. However, they were against the im­position of taxes on food and other essential goods, as the negative impacts of such an action would be felt mostly by low-income families. Instead, they strongly advocated for the high taxation of luxury goods, such as coffee, sugar, alcohol, and tobacco, as they considered the consumption of such products to be wasteful and immoral. Cameralists were of the view that the creation of luxurious goods resulted in the creation of new ‘wants of citi­zens, and thereby perhaps makes it harder for some to support themselves’ (Small 2001, 451). They did not regard the taxation of imported luxury goods as an oppressive measure, because deciding between the consumption of necessary and luxury goods was a personal matter. Furthermore, camer­alists believed that raising taxes on luxury goods would likely shift the tax burden toward wealthier consumers, because people with better economic situations would be more willing to pay a premium to satisfy their expen­sive tastes.

The cameralist economy was a mixed economy that included both pub­lic and private properties and enterprises. The state used its own properties and enterprises to generate the revenues required to finance the expenses associated with its activities, including the construction of infrastructure, the provision of health care and education services, ensuring ‘enough employ­ees in each profession,’ safeguarding domestic security, and more (Backhous 2009b, 2). According to cameralists:

the prices of goods bought and sold should be regulated; wages should likewise be controlled; the cheapest possible food, drink and clothing should be available, commensurate with the social standing of the person concerned; poorhouses should be made available to the unemployed, and begging outlawed.

(Tribe 2018, 46)

It is important to understand that cameralists were not attempting to achieve a perfectly equal society through a highly regulated economic system. Justi (1951, 394) recognized that the ideal of achieving an egalitarian society where ‘all subjects have perfectly equal property, and in which equality of contributions therefore presents no difficulty,’ is ‘proper for noble and sym­pathetic souls who see the great majority of men living an exceedingly hard and miserable life, and are touched by the sight.’ He further pointed out that there have been many cases in:

ancient and modern times, and in various republics of antiquity has caused great disturbances and unrest, when the poor citizens demanded that the rich and property-owning classes should consent to a new and equal distribution of all immoveable property. The demands of these poor citizens are completely justified in the eyes of anyone who considers the matter without prejudice.

(ibid.: 395)

At the same time, he was conscious that the ‘complete equality of property among all the members of a civil society may be in itself, it is impossible in all states where the use of money and full property rights have been introduced’ (ibid.). He explained that ‘since families neither have the same diligence and skill nor make the same expenditures, there would always be families who ac­cumulated money, and others in need, who would have to sell their property’ (ibid.). Accordingly, any efforts aimed at achieving a perfectly equal society were doomed to fail. Instead, cameralists believed that the key to common happiness was ensuring good order, security, and safety. Thus, they focused on financing, regulating, and administering various public services and programs that were designed to achieve those objectives, but also required significant expenditures. More precisely:

the establishments and institutions for the protection of the state, as well as those for the common advantage and convenience of all citizens, which are ordinarily called police (Policey) establishments, likewise re­quire large outlays; and the maintenance of relations and intercourse with other states similarly cannot go on without expenditures.

(ibid.: 379)

In order to finance public expenditures aimed at achieving good order, security, and safety, cameralists focused on improving the national economy, as well as properly administering the human and natural resources of the country.

Cameralism on Moral Values

The views of Wolff and Justi on the subject of moral and ethical values were inf luenced by their studies on ideal communities in ancient civilizations, including the Spartans and the Peruvian Empire. Those ancient civilizations defended ‘egalitarian’ principles and an ‘ethical and virtuous communal life’ (Peukert 2006, 484). According to Justi, the populations of these two par­ticular civilizations:

lived happily and contented, and nobody felt the burning passion of ambition and avarice which cause so much evil in the world.. None was poor or wretched else. because the main source of all vice, money, did not exist.

(Peukert 2006, 484 ff.24)

Given that the social and economic conditions observed in the 18th-century Prussian territories were radically different from those that prevailed in Sparta

and the Peruvian Empire, Wolff and Justi believed that common happiness, which required economic development, prosperity, order, safety, security, and the perfection of individuality, could be achieved via the moral perfec­tion of the ruler and his subjects.

Cameralists believed that common happiness was highly dependent on the virtuous behavior of both the ruled and the ruler. That said, they suggested that common happiness ultimately had to be guided by a virtuous ruler. Basi­cally, the ruler had to acquire and practice virtues, including justice, honesty, and prudence, if common happiness was to be achieved. That means the ruler had to be a student of moral philosophy before assuming power. To be more precise, the ruler needed to acquire an appropriated education, as well as solid intellectual and spiritual foundations, early in his life, so that he could go on to make morally and ethically sound decisions after coming to power. Justi (1760, 26—27) believed that a wise and virtuous ruler would always seek to unite his will and happiness with those of his subjects; he would simultane­ously prevent his will and happiness from getting into conf licts with those of his subjects. Such a ruler would also ensure that his subjects lived their lives in accordance with moral and ethical values, which would help achieve common happiness.

In order to have a society that is guided by moral and ethical values, cameralists emphasized the importance of education. They supported a public education system that was accessible to everyone regardless of the economic and social status of their family (Small 2001, 432). According to Justi, teachers at:

public schools should be chosen from the most educated, witty, and intelligent men. Every village school master should be a true teacher of morals and good conduct when the general welfare of the people and of each state is concerned.

(Peukert 2006, 481)

After graduating, students were supposed to have acquired the necessary edu­cation and development to ensure that all of their decisions and actions would be guided by moral and ethical values.