1 - Comparing Cameralisms: The Case of Sweden and Prussia

Summary

The nestor of Swedish economic history, Eli F. Heckscher, rightly drew attention to the important influence of Justus Christoph Dithmar's 1731 Einleitung in die Oeconomische- Policey- Cameral-Wissenschaften on the first Swedish-language textbook, written by Anders Berch and published in 1747 as Inledning til almanna hushalningen, innefattande grunden til politie, oeconomie och cameral wetenskaperne. Berch had become professor in Jurisprudentia, oeconomiae et commercium at Uppsala University in 1741, the first ever Swedish chair for economic subjects. Dithmar had likewise become professor in the newly created chair for Kameral-Okonomie und Polizeiwissenschaft in Frankfurt an der Oder in 1727, also the first chair of its kind at this university. It must however be said that Heckscher's comparison of the two manuals was sketchy, and by no means systematic. All the same, he emphasised their similar structure, dividing up their subject matter into three parts: oeconomy, police (Policey) and cameralistic sciences. He also pointed out that anything that might resemble ‘analysis’ in the modern sense of the word was absent from both texts. Instead, they might better be described as manuals prescribing or giving advice on how to become an economic (and moral) householder. Dithmar primarily addressed future landowners or state administrators, while Berch also included students from mercantile and manufacturing families among his potential readers.

Heckscher was mainly interested in the differences between the two textbooks, perhaps thinking that they indicated something about the socioeconomic contexts of the two countries. First he pointed out that Berch's book was more advanced than Dithmar's, being placed intellectually ‘on a much higher plane’. Berch had divided up his subject, almanna hushalningen, into two parts, enskild (individual) and almann (general) householding. General householding was a synthesis including oeconomy, Policey and Cameralism. By contrast, Heckscher considered that Dithmar's division between a Stadt (town) and Land (agriculture) economy was more traditional. At the same time he did distinguish between the individual and general levels, the former detailing technicalities of husbandry and related matters, while the economy as a whole was dealt with in a broader fashion. Secondly, he pointed out that, while both Berch and Dithmar should be considered as conservative proponents of a highly regulated economy, they differed on one vital point: that of the wider aim of regulation.