Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:11:06.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Werner Sombart's Contribution to Business History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Vincent P. Carosso
Vincent P. Carosso
Affiliation:
Carnegie Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Business history, as the study of the history of the administration and operation of business, is a relatively new discipline. As a separate academic field of study, research, and instruction, it is only about twenty-five years old and still in the stage of formulation and definition. Business history has been a peculiarly American development; the name itself was first used in the United States in 1925 to designate this special interest. But no scholar or generation of scholars begins de novo; each builds on foundations laid by earlier workers. Certainly, this is true of business history as we know it today; it owes a great deal to many individuals and to many disciplines. A number of historians and economists in the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the early part of the twentieth century made material contributions toward the development of this field. One of the most important of these was Werner Sombart. It is the purpose of this paper to indicate Sombart's role in this evolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1952 , pp. 27 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Editor's Note: A somewhat shorter version of this article was read at a joint meeting of the Business Historical Society, Inc., and the American Historical Association, held in New York on December 28, 1951.

1 For biographical information see Plotnik, Morton J., Werner Sombart and His Type of Economics (New York, 1937), pp. 24–29Google Scholar, and obituary articles in the New York Times, May 20, 1941, p. 23:4, May 22, 1941, p. 20:3, and in the American Historical Review, vol. 46 (July, 1941), pp. 1017–1018.

2 Plotnik, op. cit., p. 27.

3 See obituary article in The American Historical Review, vol. 46 (July, 1941), pp. 1017–1018.

4 Clark, J. M., “Sombart's Die drei Nationalökonomien” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 45 (May, 1931), pp. 517–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the review article in the American Economic Review, vol. 21 (March, 1931), pp. 103–104.

5 Parsons, Talcott, “Capitalism in Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 36 (December, 1928), pp. 642–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Rogin, Leo, “Werner Sombart and the Natural Science Method in Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 41 (April, 1933), p. 222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sombart, Werner, Weltanschauung Science and Economy (New York, 1939), p. 31.Google Scholar

7 Sombart, Weltanschauung, Science, and Economy, p. 31.

8 Idem.; Rogin, op. cit., p. 223.

9 Sombart, Weltanschauung, Science, and Economy, p. 35.

10 Rogin, op. cit., p. 224.

11 Ibid., pp. 225–226.

12 Sombart, Weltanschauung, Science, and Economy, p. 5; Rogin, op. cit., p. 227.

13 Werner Sombart, “Capitalism,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 3, p. 196.

14 Sombart, Werner, “Economic Theory and Economic History,” Economic History Review, vol. ii (January, 1929), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 See especially the lengthy review of Der Moderne Kapitalismus by. Commons, John R. and Perlman, Selig in the American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88Google Scholar; Brodnitz, Georg, “Recent Work in German Economic History,” Economic History Review, vol. i (January, 1928), pp. 332–345.Google Scholar

16 Sombart, “Economic Theory and Economic History,” op. cit., p. 2.

17 Ibid., p. 13.

18 Parsons, op. cit., p. 646.

19 Brodnitz, op. cit., p. 325; Parsons, op. cit., p. 643.

20 See Bode's, Karl review of Weltanschauung, Wissenschaft, und Wirtschaft (Berlin, 1938)Google Scholar in the American Economic Review, vol. 28 (December, 1938), p. 766.

21 Mitchell, Wesley C., “Sombart's Hochkapitalismus,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 43 (February, 1929), p. 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lemberger's, J. review of Das Wirt schaftsleben im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus, the concluding volume of Sombart's Der Moderne Kapitalismus in the Economic History Review, vol. i (January, 1928), p. 356Google Scholar; Harris, Abram L., “Sombart and German (National) Socialism,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 50 (December, 1942), pp. 832–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Sombart, Werner, Der Moderne Kapitalismus … vol. 3 (Munich, 1929), pp. 129–138Google Scholar; American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88.

23 Harris, op. cit., p. 832.

24 American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March 19, 1929), pp. 78–88.

25 Ibid.; Sombart, Der Moderne Kapitalismus, vol. i, p. 195.

26 Mitchell, op. cit., p. 306.

27 Parsons, op. cit.f p. 647.

28 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., p. 206.

29 On medieval business compare Gras, N. S. B., Business and Capitalism (New York, 1939), Chaps. 3–4.Google Scholar

30 Harris, op. cit. p. 832.

31 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., p. 206.

32 Ibid., pp. 198–199.

33 Ibid., pp. 204–205.

34 Harris, op. cit., p. 832.

35 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 196–198.

36 While Sombart concedes that certain elements of the capitalist spirit, in an impure, qualified form, existed in previous economic systems, it is only with the emergence of capitalist organization and technology that the capitalist spirit found its most congenial milieu for its successive development.

37 Parsons, op. cit., pp. 648–649.

38 Idem.

39 Harris, op. cit., p. 832.

40 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 200–201.

41 Idem.

42 This work was translated in 1915 by Epstein, M. under the title: The Quintessence of Capitalism: A Study of the History and Psychology of the Business Man (New York, 1915).Google Scholar The English translation is a free one and omits the first chapter, “Der Geist im Wirtschaftsleben” as well as many of the examples. The meaning, however, has not been changed.

43 American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88.

44 To some economists, Sombary's ideal type is “a hypothetical construction.” Cf. Commons, John R. and Perlman, Selig in, American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88.Google Scholar

45 Sombart, The Quintessence of Capitalism pp. 23–24.

46 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., p. 201.

47 Mitchell, op. cit., p. 307.

48 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., p. 206; see also J. Lemberger's review of vol. iii of Der Moderne Kapitalismus in the Economic History Review, January, 1928, p. 357.

49 Sombart, The Quintessence of Capitalism, p. 22; see also the first part of Sombart, Werner, A New Social Philosophy (Princeton, 1937).Google Scholar This is a translation of his Deutscher Sozialismus (Weisswange, 1934).

50 New York Times, May 22, 1941, p. 20:3.

51 Idem.

52 Economic History Review, vol. i (January, 1928), p. 356.

53 Mitchell, op. cit., pp. 320–321.

54 Sombart, Werner, The Future of Capitalism (Berlin, 1932)Google Scholar; Witcutt, W. P., “Future of Capitalism,” American Review, vol. 5 (October, 1935), pp. 531–535Google Scholar; American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88.

55 Sombart, The Quintessence of Capitalism p. 358. See also Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 206–207.

56 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 206–207; Economic History Review, vol. i (January, 1928), p. 356; Mitchell, op. cit., pp. 320–321.

57 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 206–207.

58 Mitchell, op. cit., pp. 320–321.

59 American Economic Review, vol. 19 (March, 1929), pp. 78–88.

60 Sombart, “Capitalism,” op. cit., pp. 206–207.