Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

All the nations are unique and differ in many ways. Undoubtedly, these differences are reflected also in economic theories, developed in different independent countries. Various underlying reasons can be found, and this is a complicated issue, requiring a comprehensive analysis. In the present study one can find an attempt to go deeper into the problem and find the differences and similarities in the economic theories themselves in the form they were developed in the past. It is likely that economic theories, then implemented in practice of governing, influenced evolution paths of the countries where these theories were born. Thus, the goal of the present work is to describe features of particular national styles of economic thought using the tools of comparative analysis.

The countries considered further are Russia, England and Germany. The period under review is the end of XIX, the beginning of XX century. In this period it was already possible to find in all the countries a representative figure of an economist and serious economic works, containing logically verified methodology. In order to find a work, that would reflect national style of a particular country it seems rational to look for textbooks. Textbooks, approved by the time, which experienced many editions and were used by the majority of universities and educational institutes of a country, are perfect examples not only of special approaches of different authors, but also national features. As a result the following works were chosen: “Foundations of Political Economy” by Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky, “Principles of economics” by Alfred Marshall and “Layout of General Economics” by Gustav von Schmoller. Already the titles of the works give the reader an idea of general treatises, explaining economy's organization from the beginning to the end.

The first textbook “Foundations of political economy” analyzed in the present study was first published in 1909 and experienced another four lifetime editions (the last, 5^th was published in 1918 and was reprinted several times, until 1998). The book was widely used in Russian universities, won the first prize at the competition of textbooks held by the Imperial Academy of Sciences (see Bogomazov, 2006, p. 97-8), and received a number of positive reviews not only from Russian scholars but from abroad Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky was the first Russian economist who became famous in international academic society, this fact will be discussed further in more detail.. A.Nove wrote: “Tugan's Fundamentals provided, it seems to me, a very rich and varied intellectual diet for students. Its excellent Russian style makes it a pleasure to read” (Nove, 1970, p. 124). F.Allisson pointed out that textbook was intended “for both pedagogical and scientific purposes and constituted the best place to find gathered together many areas of Tugan-Baranovsky's research” (Allisson, 2015, p. 112). This important notion makes reasonable the choice of this particular textbook for the present study, as it represents a massive collection of all the ideas concerning economic science and its teaching. Further in the present research the very first, 1909, edition will be analyzed. First, it seems interesting to deal with the initial version of such a fundamental treatise; second, this edition was close to that one of 1915 which won the honorable prize. Tugan-Baranovsky made significant adjustments in 1917, however, amendments relate mainly to the theory of money, which will not be investigated in detail in the present study.

“Principles of Economics” is a leading political economy or economics textbook of Alfred Marshall, first published in 1890. It ran into eight editions and was the standard text for generations of economics students. An important thing to mention here is that the text of Marshall's work varied from edition to edition. In the following analysis will be considered the last, eighth edition, published initially in 1920. Adolf Wagner in his 1981 review noted that “Principles” established in “just and admirable fashion the continuity between classical English political economy and the science as it must stand to satisfy the demands of the present”. He also pointed out an important feature of the textbook, namely that it marked no revolution, but a progress, and this evolutionary style makes “Principles” similar to Tugan-Baranovsky's “Foundations”. J.M.Keynes was impressed by the great work his teacher did. Reviewing “Principles”, he wrote: “The book reached the general public. It increased the public esteem of Economics. The minimum of controversy was provoked” (Keynes, 1924, p. 355). One will find the references to the last, 8^th, lifetime edition of Marshall's textbook in the following analysis. “Principles” were significantly changed by the author with every new edition; therefore it is reasonable to examine the “final” version.

“Grundriss des allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre”, in English “Layout of General Economics” contains two volumes, the first was published in 1900, and the second - in 1904. The textbook is truly massive. F.W.Taussig conceded that “no one can open the second volume of Professor Schmoller's Grundriss' without renewed admiration for this scholar's remarkable achievements. The mere quantity of his work is extraordinary” (Taussig, 1905, p. 501). That quantity of work even scared some scholars. As N.Balabkins noted, the two volumes together accounted for 1393 pages. “The sheer bulk challenged the reader's patience and mind” (Balabkins, 1988a, p. 61). American economists Ekelund and Hebert called “Grundriss” “elephantine” (Ekelund, Hebert, 2013, p. 197). Obviously, it is not an easy reading, however, the textbook was of great importance in German universities during the German Historical School dominance. It was translated into French and, as Backhaus attested, was quite readable, as “the French edition of the Grundriss sold six thousand copies within the first six years after its appearance” (Backhaus, 1993, p. 10).

Thus, all three works were recognized by the economic society in the countries where they were written and also all over the world. Moreover, authors' characters themselves represented mentalities of the countries. Tugan-Baranovsky was an exponent of Legal Marxism, and was always interested in philosophy, developed ethical concepts of liberty and was participating in the revolutionary movement which sought to overthrow monarchy in Russia. Marshall was a pragmatic theorist, always loving mathematics and developing concepts of total welfare, where each person should contribute like players in football team do. Schmoller, being an adherent of young German Historical School relied more on empirical statistical data and historical background of economic and social phenomena and tried to develop theoretical systems, which the real German society of his time could made use of. Nevertheless, even being a participant of Metodenstreit, he conceded the importance of induction and tries to find a balance between theory and practice as well as Tugan-Baranovsky and Marshall did.

First of all, the present study considers separately the personalities of the authors of the above mentioned textbooks. Further it compares the table of contents of the three textbooks. Then it examines the differences and similarities of methodological approach used in “Principles”, “Grundriss”, and “Foundations”. After that, author's interpretations of value theory as a core concept of any economic system will be presented. Distribution theories and their comparison follows value theories description and their juxtaposing. This brings the analysis to the conclusion.

marshall baranovsky schmoller economic

The great economist of their time

Alferd Marshall

Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) is one the founding fathers of neoclassical economics. He made a significant contribution to the development of so-called Cambridge School of Economics, after he returned to his alma mater as a professor in 1884. By publishing his magnum opus, “Principles of economics”, “Marshall established beyond question his supremacy in economic matters at Cambridge and in a large part of the English-speaking world” (Becatini, 2006, p. 610). Indeed, the contribution of Marshall to the economic science in their native country and all over the world cannot be underestimated, and it is not a surprise that the greatest economists of all the times expressed their admiration for him. For instance, John Maynard Keynes, Marshall's student in Cambridge, devoted to his teacher a big article, published in “The economic journal” in 1924. Describing Marshall's talent in this article, Keynes noted that “chiefly his mixed training and divided nature furnished him with the most essential and fundamental of the economist's necessary gifts - he was conspicuously historian and mathematician, a dealer in the particular and the general, the temporal and the eternal, at the same time” (Keynes, 1924, p. 322). The article, written by Keynes has an important value for the present study, as the British!! economist described the process of creating Marshall's “Principles…” in great detail. Keynes told his readers about the hard scrupulous work, conducted by Marshall, and the intention of the latter to present not the separate pieces of theory in scattered brochures but a fundamental work which would contain the whole economic theory from the very beginning to its logical end. Marshall's synthetic approach is highlighted by all the historians who studied “Principles” deeply and carefully. A.Pigou summarized well the general impression from Marshall's work, saying that he “would have nothing to do with controversies between deductive schools, inductive schools, historical schools and so on. There was work for all and he welcomed all. Constructive work was what he wanted." (Pigou, 1925, p. 88). Notably, there is a surprisingly vast amount of special literature on Marshall's use of the historical approach. P.Groenewegen, speaking about the place of the history of economic thought in “Princples”, conceded that Marshall was not a good doctrinal historian, however, his “advice on the importance of knowing the classics combined with the emphasis he gave in his “Principles” to the growth of the science, make his effective contribution to the history of economics as a subject one of continuing value” (Groenewegen, 1991, p. 83). However, historical methods of economic research were not Marshall's passion, and he always considered any inference, based merely on historical data, with great circumspection. Explaining Marshall's attitude to economic history G.Hodgson claimed, Marshall “paid unbounded tribute to the work of the historical school, but simultaneously undermined the naive empiricist views in their midst” (Hodgson, 2005, p. 338). G.Koot went further in his study and concluded that “impressed by historicist ideas in his early years, he failed to shape an economic history that suited his political and intellectual ideals” (Koot, 2006, p. 172). Besides the historical approach, used by Marshall, his investigations of other social sciences in connection with economics are widely discussed in literature up to this day. P.Giovannini paid attention to the place of sociological research in Marshall's analysis (Giovannini, 2006), R.Martinoia examined Marshall's social and political views through the role of businessmen in his economic system (Martinoia, 2012), T.Raffaelli described the role of psychological studies in Marshall's view of industrial organization (Raffaelli, 1994). Thus, one should expect to face a comprehensive interdisciplinary analysis in “Principles of Economics”.

Marshall's philosophical and ideological views were affected by different personalities and doctrines. However, as S.Cook asserted, Marshall's thought, even in its early stages, was not determined by any particular concept, it was independent and frequently departed from the routes taken by his contemporaries (Cook, 2006, p. 105). Nevertheless it is possible to distinguish the main contributors to the formation of Marshall's views. For instance, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, whose “Philosophy of History” influenced Marshall's attitude to historical research. Cook pointed out that it was Hegel's book that spawned Marshall's interest in studying historical evolutionary processes and provided him with comprehensive approach of “universal history”. The same did Spencer's “First Principles of a New System of Philosophy”. One may notice that Marshall generally gravitated towards all-embracing theories and he wanted to build a similar catch-all theoretical system in his “Principles”. That is one of the possible reasons of the delay of publishing the book, discussed by Keynes (Keynes, 1924, p. 341-346). G.Hodgson also mentioned Marshall's affection to Kant and his personal perception of Kant's ideas: “Philosophically, Marshall was an admirer of Immanuel Kant. From a similar perspective, Marshall recognised the limitations of all empirical enquiry” (Hodgson, 2005, p. 338). The most significant impact on Marshall's economic ideas, according to many scholars, had John Stuart Mill. T.Raffaelli analyzed the interconnections between the positions of the two English economists and concluded that there were some significant controversies between them (for instance, Mill accepted the Ricardian theory of accumulation, while Marshall did not; Marshall rejected the idea of combining economics - in Mill's restricted version - with the “science of character” (Raffaelli, 2003, p. 3-6). Nevertheless, constructing his theory, Marshall was reconsidering the ideas of Mill, and that is why the latter is an important contributor to the ideas of the former.

Besides his brilliant academic career, Marshall was also actively engaged in political life of society. P.Groenewegen attests that the economist was a member of the Labor Commission and gave evidence to many other Royal Commissions, for instance, the Gold and Silver Commission in 1888 the Indian Currency Commission in 1889, the Aged Poor Commission in 1893, etc, see (Groenewegen, 2006). He was working hard, “was an assiduous questioner at the Commission, whose sessions he attened diligently” (Groenewegen, 2006, p. 87). Marshall's active involvement into administrative affairs could be explained by his desire of economic science to be faithful to serving society and its needs. It was mentioned by many historians that Marshall was never striving to present elegant theoretical models but he wanted to study social phenomena by the means of economic theory and modelling in order to overcome difficulties of ordinary people's life. Supporting that, Coase asserted: “Marshall had come to economics because he wanted to help in eliminating poverty and in enhancing the quality of man and man's life” (Coase, 1975, p. 28).

Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky

Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky (1865-1919) was the first Russian economist who managed to deserve the world recognition. He had always been famous mostly for his theory of business cycles, which was presented in his Master dissertation “Industrial Crises in Contemporary England: Their Causes and Influences on the Life of the People”, first published in 1894 and then translated into German (1901), and French (1913). R. Harrod and E. Hansen wrote in their book: “His theory broke into the science like a fresh sea breeze. He correctly pointed to the main feature of the cycle - fluctuations in the size of investment. This assertion signifies a turning point in the theory of the business cycle” (Harrod, Hansen, 1997, p. 21). Modern historians of economic thought do not focus their attention on this particular issue only. For instance, N. Makasheva (2016) studied ethical foundations of Tugan-Baranovsky's theory, N. Nenovsky (2009) was interested in the labor theory, elaborated by Tugan-Baranovsky, F. Alisson (2014) analyzed Tugan-Baranovsky's vision of socialism and his attitude to socialist economic system. J.A. Schumpeter claimed Tugan-Baranovsky to be “the most eminent Russian economist of that period”, who “did much historical work of high quality; but he was also a `theorist'; and he combined, or welded into a higher unit, these two interests” (Schumpeter, 1954, p. 1092). Tugan-Baranovsky's propensity for “critical synthesis” was emphasized also by A. Nove: “Tugan-Baranovsky was clearly influenced by socialist ideas and by Marxist economics. But he also read Menger, Jevons, and Walras and took them very seriously” (Nove, 1970, p.247). Nove compares Tugan-Baranovsky's contribution to Russian economic science with that of Marshall to England: “Tugan's influence on his contemporaries in Russia was at least as great as that one of Marshall on English economists” (Nove, 1970, p. 125). Thus, the choice of Tugan-Baranovsky as a Russian scholar, representing the features of Russian economic science (while comparing it with English economics, delivered by Marshall) during the period under review is completely justifiable. Moreover, P.Klyukin in his attempt to characterize the Russian tradition of economic analysis during the years 1890-1935 assigns to Tugan-Baranovsky the role of the forerunner of Russian scientific research in economics. According to Klyukin, such scientists as Tugan-Baranovsky, Dmitriev, Slutsky, Leontiev, Kondratiev have formed “primary basic theoretical constructions, while all other authors seem to be either reduced to basic ones, or be considered outside the theoretical field” (Klyukin, 2014, p. 28).

Tugan-Baranovsky's philosophical and economic views were forming under the influence of Marx, Kant, and marginalist economists. Schumpeter clarifies: “From Marx he had learned to theorize, though he experienced the influence both of the English `classics' and of the Austrians” (Schumpeter, 1954, p. 1092). Tugan-Baranovsky's propensity for “critical synthesis” was emphasized also by A. Nove: “Tugan-Baranovsky was clearly influenced by socialist ideas and by Marxist economics. But he also read Menger, Jevons, and Walras and took them very seriously” (Nove, 1970, p.247). Marx is the most cited author in “Foundations”. On the other hand, Tugan-Baranovsky's affection to Kant is mentioned by all the historians who studied the ideas of the economist, meanwhile Kant's and neo-Kantian influence is analyzed from the different points of view. N.Nenovsky highlighted the features of the research process: “Following the neo-Kantian methodology, Tugan divides every theoretical research into two phases: description and explanation” (Nenovsky, 2009, p. 56); N.Makasheva explained that the roots of Tugan-Baranovsky's attitude to Kantian philosophy by the general tendency dominating in Russian science: “Tugan-Baranovsky's attempt to graft Kantian ethics onto political economy was a part and parcel of the general social thinking of that time” (Makasheva, 2016, p. 78). According to Zweinert, “the Kantian Maxim, namely the supreme value of human personality, according to which a person must always be considered as an end in itself, and never as a means, became at the turn of the century the core philosophy of Tugan-Baranovsky” (Zweinert, 2008, p. 326). The Kantian principle became the keynote of Tugan-Baranovsky's “Foundations”. That is confirmed by V.Barnett, a famous researcher of Russian economic thought (Barnett, 2004, p. 83), and also by A.Sheptun (see Sheptun, 2005). A.Nove highlighted a direct influence of this principle on value theory, developed by Tugan-Baranovsky: “the labor of man has a special relationship to production. Tugan thus supports an ethically based labor theory of value” (Nove, 1970, p. 118).

Kantian philosophy provided the ideological foundation for theoretical system, while Karl Marx and marginalist school influenced the economic views of Tugan-Baranovsky. It becomes clear right after reading the dedication of “Foundations”: “to François Quesnay, the creator of “Economic table”; Hermann Gossen, the creator of marginal utility theory; and Karl Marx, the most profound critic of the capitalist system” (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1909). The economist emphasized his intention to develop a reliable economic theory, containing elements of both marginalist and Marxist doctrines (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1909, p.5). His attitude to Marx will be considered in more detail in the section “Methodology”, just the most important to mention that he was against the idea of doomed to fail capitalism and supported the idea of evolutionary social development through legislation well based on economic theory. On the other hand, one may notice that “Foundations” include a large amount of facts from economic history of Russia and other countries (especially, England). V.Barnett provided some evidence of the high influence of the German Historical School on Russian scholars of that time, arguing that “historical political economy was certainly a dominant current in Russian economics between 1870 and 1917, and Tugan-Baranovsky was a central figure within this current” (Barnett, 2004, p. 90). A. Sheptun expressed the same opinion that German Historical School of Political Economy was “one of the intellectual sources that exerted influence on the shaping of pre-revolutionary Russian economic thought” (Sheptun, 2005, p. 350).

As for political issues, Tugan-Baranovsky was more a socialist, and, as N.Makasheva mentioned, he always “strove for the transcendental ethical principle as a ground for political economy of socialism” (Makasheva, 2016, p. 112). The socialism of Tugan-Baranovsky was not based on the idea of universal equality but, arising from neo-Kantian philosophy, on the idea of social freedom for an individual. This idea is revealed throughout the whole “Foundations”, culminating in the last chapter, which represents an attempt to create a unique social theory of wealth distribution. N.Nenovsky supports this assertion, writing that “Tugan elaborated a personal vision of the development of capitalism, diversity of economic forms, and a personal model of socialism” (Nenovsky, 2009, p. 53). F.Alisson highlights that Tugan-Baranovsky suggested planning in a socialist economy, and explains how the Russian economist managed to provide its substantiation by the synthetic theory of value (see Alisson, 2014).

Gustav von Schmoller

Gustav von Schmoller (1838-1917) was the leader of one of the most controversial scientific schools of economics - the Younger German Historical School. However, there is no doubt that over the period reviewed in the present study this school maintained a dominant position in German economic thought. And Schmoller, being an absolute leader of the “younger” historical school, held an influential position in economic science. T.W. Hutchison claimed Schmoller to be “a powerful academic empire-builder, who controlled appointments to chairs in the narrow interest of his own historical approach, or school” (Hutchison, 1988, p. 527). On the same page of Hutchison's “Gustav Schmoller and the problems of today”, one gets a generalized impression of the personality: “At the start of this century, at the peak of his career, Schmoller was a pre-eminent, commanding figure in German political economy”. Jürgen Backhaus in his article, written for the conference in Heilbronn, dedicated to the Schmoller's sesquicentennial, drew the reader's attention to the fact that Schmoller took an active part in legislative processes, assigning to Schmoller “a leading role in making advanced social reforms possible” (Backhaus, 1993, p. 3). Nicolas Balabkins, one of the most prominent researchers of Schmoller's works, notes in his book that “like Marshall in Cambridge, who shared many of his concerns, he tried to reorient the economics profession from within with approaches to research and instruction” (Balabkins, 1988b, p. 5). This remark is as important for the present study, as the remark of A.Nove about Tugan-Baranovsky juxtaposed to Marshall. The same level of importance, influence, and outstanding success, earned by Marshall, Schmoller, and Tugan-Baranovsky makes their works comparable and makes the comparison challenging and, at the time, valuable. Nevertheless Schmoller had always been considered in economic literature merely as an adherent of historical school, more and more authors have recently paid attention to Schmoller's endeavors to synthesize different approaches. “It was Gustav von Schmoller who explicitly combined ethics and history, ” - claimed Yuichi Shionoya (Shinoya, 2005, p. 14), a famous Japanese researcher of the German Historical School. Moreover, the majority of the historians of economic thought who studied Schmoller's “Grundriss” highlighted its interdisciplinary research design. N.Balabkins noted that “Schmoller analyzes all social phenomena in their settings and interdependence” (Balabkins, 1988b, p. 63); J.Backhaus characterized Schmoller's work by “a pluralism in scholarly methods, and certainly not confined to the historical inductive method” (Backhaus, 1993, p. 10); K.Schmidt summarized: “The reconsideration of Gustav Schmoller's scientific work demonstrates the interdisciplinary and evolutionary approach” (Schmidt, 1993, p. 10). Even though Schmoller's “Grundriss” did not experience new editions since 1923, and the full text was translated into French only, this vast treatise had the great influence on Schmoller's successors, not only those belonging to Historical school. Helge Peukert gave the special name to the increased interest on Schmoller's work during the last decades of the XX century: “The Schmoller Renaissance” (Peukert, 2001). In the eponymous article, Peukert notes that “the debate on Schmoller's importance has slowly reached a scientific level of discourse, and this is indeed great progress” (Peukert, 2001, p. 97).

Being a young student, Schmoller was working with his father as a civil servant. That administrative work became one of the determinants of Schmoller's future choice of career path and research program. As far as he met people from different social layers he could realize the economic situation of real folk, problems of ordinary workers and their needs by himself. Since that time, practice-oriented work and serving the people of his Homeland had become the salient features of Schmoller's activities. If one recalls Coase's assertion about the roots of Marshall's interest in economic science (Coase, 1975, p. 28), he or she will immediately notice the similarity between the German and the English scholars: both of them began their career in economics, inspired by the desire to improve economic state of their countries. After graduating from high school, Schmoller enrolled at the University of Tübingen where his major discipline was Kameralwissenschaft. This discipline is a particular German phenomenon, and it contains the main concepts of different social sciences (such as economics, sociology, administration and management, history, jurisprudence). As a graduate fresh out of university, Schmoller was a person of a spacious mind. However, at the same time, some historians were even concerned whether Schmoller was an expert in any field. For instance, H.Peukert, providing his interpretation of Engelhardt (Engelhardt, 1995) contends: “Schmoller confounded a neutral-evolutionary, an Aristotelian essentialist, and a Kantian individualist concept” (Peukert, 2001, p. 87). Indeed, one can hardly distinguish a person or a concept which had a major influence on the development of Schmoller's world outlook. As it was already mentioned, considering the German economist merely as an adherent of historical approach only would mean being ignorant because he strove to combine methods for obtaining models applicable to complicated reality.

Throughout his life Schmoller was actively involved in politics. As N.Balabkins attested, “he served in numerous committees, drafted legislative proposals, was the tune-calling member of the Verein fur Socialpolitik” (Balabkins, 1988b, p. 49). All the efforts of the German scholar were aimed at establishing prosperous social state in his country. Analyzing legal measures proposed by Schmoller one may notice the similarity of Schmoller's and Tugan-Baranovsky's political views. In general, both of them were not satisfied with Marxist doctrine of socialism and supported the concept of the capitalist economy with social support. This common feature of the two scientists' ideology was pointed by Balabkins in his short but valuable article “Schmoller in Tsarist Russia”, where one finds Schmoller's position juxtaposed to that of Tugan-Baranovsky: “He [Tugan] also [as well as Schmoller] rejected the entire Marxian doctrine and had no use for socialist social order”. At the same time, the article clarified Schmoller's ideals: “He wanted neither laissez-faire capitalism nor Marxist socialism, but an eventual welfare state for Germany” (Balabkins, 1988b, p. 583-584). Balabkins also pointed out an interesting detail that Schmoller was a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Science from 1891 to 1916 (ibid). Speaking about political decisions, Schmoller conceded the importance of economic research, yet it was necessary but not sufficient. Seeing this, Backhaus pointed out that Schmoller proposed the choice of economic policy “through a process of institutionally rich analysis” always using “enough historical, institutional, political, fiscal, and cultural data to impose constraints on the set of available solutions” (Backhaus, 1993, p. 6). In fact, such a position is similar to Marshall's who tried to use economic analysis for policy-making, taking decisions that would improve people's lives. Schmidt confirmed that Schmoller “aimed at a decrease in the differences between the social classes as regards income, wealth, standard of living and the economic and social conditions of well-being”. For describing Schmoller's concerns Schmidt used almost the same words as Coase did to express Marshall's position (see above, Coase, 1975, p. 28).

All the three authors of the famous textbooks were not revolutionists but synthesizers, all of them tried to reach the proper balance between the amount empirical data and theoretical modelling. Schmoller relied more on induction and statistics. Shionoya, reviewing “Grundriss”, mentioned that “although its theoretical content is meager, the book indicates that the German Historical School does not deny theoretical formulation” (Shionoya, 2005, p. 18). Marshall made a wide use of theoretical mathematics; however, it was basically placed into appendixes. Marco Dardi “not only mathematical forms, but also pieces of mathematical reasoning, escaped the flames and made their way into the Mathematical Appendix to the Principles” (Dardi, 2014, p. 25). Tugan-Baranovsky also mentioned that one should rely on deductive theoretical or mathematical inference with circumspection. At the same time, all the three were playing important roles in policy-making and were dealing with practical issues every day. This determined the practice-oriented nature of some sections of all the three textbooks.

Comparing the tables of contents

When a reader opens the first page of any book, he or she sees short outline of the particular book. Usually one does not pay much attention on the way that the outline is written but already here one can find differences and similarities relevant for the present study.

Let us first consider the contents separately. Tugan-Baranovsky organized his work as follows: in the beginning he described general doctrine of economy; then 10 chapters were devoted to the production; after that the author discussed exchange concepts; further distribution theory was described; and finally, Tugan-Baranovsky wrote a section called “capitalist economy as a whole”. That one is less abstract than the first, expressing general theoretic ideas, and is provided with plenty of examples from real life. There are some very important points concerning the structure of the book. All of them are divided into chapters, which in turn are divided into subchapters, so at the very beginning a reader is aware of the book's contents to the smallest details and if somebody is interested only in, say, in the union of entrepreneurs (cooperatives), he or she can easily go straight to the point with help of the precise outline given by the author. Actually, having read only the contents, one can already get an idea of the book's structure: the author gives a detailed description of the four most important pieces of theory (doctrine of economy, production, exchange, distribution), everything underpinned by examples, whereupon a study of capitalist economy is provided where all the mentioned concepts are functioning, moving from specific to general. Within this classical economics framework Tugan-Baranovsky pays special attention to the situation in Russia. It becomes absolutely clear after analyzing a detailed outline of the second and the third sections of “Foundation of Political Economy”. Every chapter of “Production” section contains description of a particular phenomenon in Russia (“Artisans In Russia”, “Handicraft industry in Russia”, “Artel movement in Russia”, “Pre-reform, post-reform factory in Russia”, “The origins of the Russian peasant commune (obshchina)”. Tugan-Baranovsky's textbook is concentrated on Russia-oriented theory, not on universal theory, even though one can find such chapters as “Land commune in western Europe and in the East”, and some sections concerning England.

Schmoller's “Layout of General Economics” is divided into four books, preceded by the introduction. Like Tugan-Baranovsky, Schmoller concretized each part's contents, providing a detailed division of the chapters into sections and subsections. It helps a reader to understand the message of all the parts clearly: introduction tells about the foundations of economy, describing the phenomenon from different angles, and not only economic component of social life is taken into account; the first book deals with the resources, human and natural, and technical component of economy; the second book traces the development of the social constitution of the national economy, its most important organs and their main causes; the third book examines the social process of income circulation and distribution, involving the description of price and wage formation, competition mechanisms, and social institutes contribution; the last book is a peculiar conclusion, analyzing the evolution of economic life in general on macroeconomic level, including the explanation of business cycles and crises, mechanisms of international trade, and class struggle on the national level. All the books contain a historical review of the described processes and statistical data, carefully collected by Schmoller. Thus, the general logic of Schmoller's textbook testifies to his belonging to German Historical School of economics, and it becomes clear already after reading the table of contents, where each section is provided with facts about the historical development (geschichtliche Entwicklung) of a particular phenomenon. Tugan-Baranovsky also made an attempt to provide a retrospective analysis and some data, but, as it is seen from the contents, his database is less extensive as Schmoller's one and concerns only Russian and English history. Nevertheless, this indicates similarities in the approaches of the two scholars, namely historical and statistical.

By looking at Marshall's contents, it is easy to notice that he does not give such a detailed outline. Details and concretizations are always found in the fields and in the footnotes, and it is a salient feature of Marshall's book as Keynes (1924), and Raffaelli (2003) mentioned. He divided his work into six books. But it can be immediately noticed that the structure of “Principles of Economics” differs from one of “Foundations of Political Economy” and “Layout of General Economics”. As well as the other two scientists, Marshall begins with the general theory description; his first book is titled “Preliminary Survey” and the second one “Some Fundamental Notions”. However, the common beginning of the three works is the first and the last significant similarity. Marshall then develops the theme of wants and their satisfaction, production factors, demand and supply relations and the distribution of national income. There are no distinct steps of the economic processes; the whole cycle from production to consumption is considered simultaneously which corresponds to the logic of marginalist theory. Tugan-Baranovsky, who considered his theory standing apart from marginalism and Marxism (these directions of economic science were the two mainstream doctrines of that time, according to Tugan-Baranovsky (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1909, p. 5)), shared ideas of Say's classical division of economic system. In turn, Marshall distinguished production, distribution and consumption, highlighting their sequential order. Moreover, a very interesting difference from Tugan-Baranovsky's and Schmoller's contents is the absence of detailed subdivision of the books. Each book is divided into chapters, but the names of all the chapters are written in general words, for instance “Marginal Costs in Relation to Values. General Principles”. One will never find concrete titles like the Russian economist gives to his chapters (“Economic state of artisans”, “Sismondi's market theory” etc.). Before reading the books we can expect the English economist to be prone to simplification and generalization, while both the Russian and the German economists seem to tend to go deep into details, and thus making economic phenomena and, therefore, economic science more complicated. Another thing to notice about Marshall's book structure is the plenty of appendixes. It might be a bit confusing for a student when an author always sends him or her to the end of the book to continue studying a topic, but at the same time it can be explained by the very idea of a textbook: all extra information, insignificant for the general theories, should not interrupt a keynote. If one feels confident enough to go further and study particular cases, he or she can do it, otherwise appendix may just stay unread in order not to give any confusion. If one looks through appendixes, he or she will notice that there are mostly mathematic and algebraic calculations. In fact, Marshall did not want his reader to be scared by some theoretical reasoning that could be difficult for those who had not studied math. The English economist would have liked his book to be read by businessmen, and not only read, but also understood in a right way. He wanted his work to be useful for the general public, to be clear and interesting, and not overloaded by mathematics and too complicated. Speaking about economic methodology, furthermore we will see that Marshall very often resorts to the method of aggregation, one of the most important methods, still used by economists, which makes an analysis easier and applicable to real life. This tendency is seen immediately after reading the first page of contents, which is important in distinguishing particular features of the works under review.

Although sections' titles of “Principles of Economics”, “Foundations of Political Economy”, and “Layout of General Economics” have almost nothing in common, we finally observe one section being present in all of them, namely a section devoted to distribution mechanism. Tugan-Baranovsky's section “The Distribution”, Marshall's 4th book “The Distribution of the National Income” and Schmoller's 3^rd book “The social process of circulation and distribution of income” open a wide field for a comparative research. Studying these parts we further notice that also the contents are almost the same. The authors tell readers about earnings of labor, profits, rent of land, and finally - general view of distribution. However, Tugan-Baranovsky, gives a lot of particular details, such as introduction to the class theory, some laws concerning occupational Safety and Health in the world and in Russia, facts about different labor unions. Schmoller includes such issues as money and credit into his distribution description. We again observe complicated sections provided by Tugan-Baranovsky and Schmoller while Marshall's book IV is aimed at explaining merely the process of allocation different incomes of different factors of production. Looking ahead, one may notice that Marshall has an appendix for the book IV which is titled “The Incidence of Local Rates, with some Suggestions as to Policy” where it comes to tax legislation.

In addition, there is one difference that may attract attention of a researcher: the presence of the 5th chapter of Tugan-Baranovsky's book, which is called “Capitalist economy in general” which corresponds to Schmoller's “Evolution of economic life in general”. In these parts both authors consider business cycles, crises, and global market mechanisms. One does not find such a chapter in Marshall's work. In case of Tugan-Baranovsky devoting a separate section to the description of capitalist economy may be explained by historical background. The economist advocated the need for the development of capitalism in Russia, rejected the thesis of populists of the peasant commune stability and the usefulness of its saving and maintaining through land redistribution. Having examined the economic evolution in England, Tugan-Baranovsky opposed to populists claims that the rapid growth of Russian capitalism could occur. The results of the Russian capitalism study were presented in Tugan's doctoral dissertation "The Russian Factory in Past and Present" (1898). As the textbook, considered now, was written after that, the Russian economist obviously used obtained results to generalize his ideas and present them in a form of studying material. As for Schmoller, a distinct book was necessary for him to conclude his historical and economical study. In the first three books he considered particular parts of economic life, and in the last one he built a complex theoretical and historical system of economic life and its development. As well as Tugan-Baranovsky, he moved to macro-level of economic analysis. It is worth noting that Marshall's table of contents does not contain macroeconomic issues. Marshall's target audience was the society of practice-oriented business people, while Schmoller wished his treatise to help in teaching future policy-makers. That is why marcoeconomic component was a necessary topic to cover for the latter.

Introductory parts

Speaking about differences, one should mention an extended first section, provided by Schmoller, an introduction which differs from those ones of Tugan-Baranovsky and Marshall. The German economist devoted to it the first 126 pages. This introduction describes the concept of national economy (die Volkswirtschaft) and the psychical, moral and legal foundations of the national economy and the society. What a reader may immediately notice is that Schmoller used an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the national economy phenomenon. It is not even needed to delve into the details, reading the titles of subchapters to understand that the economy is considered by Schmoller as a comprehensive system and his treatise is not an easy reading material. Sections of the second chapter confirm this first impression. Here one can detect mentioning such topics as psychophysical means of human understanding, language and writing, humans' drivers, individual needs and feelings, moral orders of social life, the role of religion, custom, law, and morality. It turns out that Schmoller involved psychology, sociology, philosophy, ethics and even physiology in economic analysis, and he would like his reader to be well-prepared for economic theory itself and study national economy through different prisms before going to pure economic categories. The third chapter of the introduction traces the historical development of literature and the method of economics. The chapter consists of five sections (beginning of economic doctrines until the XVI century, reawakening of science and the natural law of the XVII century, prevailing systems of the XVIII and XIX century, methods of economics, transformation into science in the nineteenth century), and the table of contents makes clear the depth of historical investigation. A researcher who made a little effort to read the table of contents until the end of introductory part already understood that he was dealing with a work of a Historical School protagonist. At the first sight, Schmoller's introduction correlates with Marshall's first book which is titled “Preliminary survey” and Tugan-Baranovsky's first part “General theory of the economy”. A more detailed analysis reveals more similarities between Schmoller's and Tugan-Baranovsky's contents than between Schmoller's and Marshall's ones. Indeed, Marshall provides only very generalized view of the core ideas of economic science, such as economic laws and aims of economic studies. Then he immediately proceeds with economic theory itself and explains some fundamental notions (wealth, production, consumption, labor, necessaries, income, capital) in the second book. The first part of Tugan-Baranovsky's textbook seems more chaotic than Schmoller's introduction, but a number of similarities can be noticed. The first two chapters of “Foundation of political economy” are the major sources of similarities with the introductory part of “Layout of general economics”. Besides the general description and definition of the economy, both scholars mention the concept of individual economies as social organs and the national economy in their tables of contents, and this similarity provides the first evidence that both the German and the Russian economists tend to go deep into details. Tugan-Baranovsky describes his view of economic methodology in his second chapter of the first part, and a reader can guess that such sections as “the explanation of economic phenomena”, “the comparison of political economy and other social sciences”, “the division of political economy into parts” correspond to Schmoller's “the methods of economic science”. Another similarity is the presence of historical analysis, which was provided by Tugan-Baranovsky in the last two chapters of his first part (“historical categories of commodity economy and capitalistic economy”, “the development of national economy”). However, one will not find any mentioning of the psychical, moral and legal foundations of the national economy and the society as a whole neither in Tugan-Baranovsky's nor in Marshall's contents, while Schmoller devoted more than 60 pages to this theme. The Russian economist placed the chapter “logical categories of the economy, value and cost” in the middle of the first part which seems unusual in terms of narration logic. Indeed, such themes are considered in introduction neither by Schmoller nor by Marshall. This small detail indicates the complexity of Tugan-Baranovsky's style of writing, and it will be proved in the present research again several times.

Having juxtaposed merely the three introductory parts, one has already got a view of three different logics. It is clear that Schmoller's textbook belongs to Historical School, and that it is a complex interdisciplinary analysis, taking into consideration different aspects of human's life, not only economic ones. Tugan-Baranovsky also demonstrates a comprehensive detailed approach even though his logic does not seem as coherent as Schmoller's logic. The Russian scholar tries to provide some general theory in the very first part of his book while the German prefers his reader to become erudite and well-prepared before proceeding with economic theory. The same does Marshall, who devotes the first book to the explanation of economic doctrine in general, and then provides “Some fundamental notions” in the second book. The English economist, in contrast with the Russian and the German ones, does not concretize the contents of his chapters using the division into sections and subsections. This seems insignificant but it will be later proved that Marshall is prone to a higher level of abstraction not only in writing the table of contents. Further simultaneous consideration of the three tables of contents brings us to very interesting notions.

Comparing methodological approach

After a quick initial comparison of the authors and textbooks, getting an idea of their structure the present study proceeds with analyzing the first sections of the books and the comparison of methodological approaches, outlined in the sections. Methodological features determine the whole theory, and that is why it is important to reveal differences and similarities in research methods used by the economists before examining distinct economic concepts elaborated by Marshall, Schmoller, and Tugan-Baranovsky.

The name of science

The first difference that catches the eye at once is how the economists named the science they were engaged in. For Tugan-Baranovsky it is always Political Economy (very rarely - Economic Science to avoid duplication). He outlined his position clearly in the very beginning of the first chapter: “Political economy as a science studies national economy” (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1909, p. 2). It is worth noting that the word economy, used in expressions political economy and national economy, is translated into Russian differently Political economy = ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ýêîíîìèÿ, while national economy = íàðîäíîå õîçÿéñòâî, where the word õîçÿéñòâî comes from the word õîçÿèí, i.e. host or owner. This minor detail entails a very interesting linguistic discussion, as there is no such division in English, while in German the translation is literally the same: national economy = Volkswirtschaft, and mere economy = Wirtschaft, that comes from the word Wirt, which stands for host or owner, like in Russian! Therefore, Russian scientific terms came mostly from German. National economy then is determined as “a set of formally independent individual households that are connected by the means of exchange” (ibid, p.19). Tugan-Baranovsky also pointed out that political economy should deal with human's interests, hence all the natural processes were considered from human's welfare point of view.