ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 39 



the notion of development, but rather that of stability that shapes 

 the discussion. 



The legitimacy of systematic science is clearly not to be impugned. 

 Science it certainly is. The history of scientific endeavors in other 

 fields shows that such work has, at one time or another, engrossed 

 a considerable share of the attention of leading minds ; but the later 

 history of many of these same sciences shows a diminishing con- 

 viction of its present usefulness. And those that have been most 

 successful in detaching themselves from the discipline of philosophy 

 have given it up as an unprofitable enterprise and have taken to 

 'other and less pretentious methods. Systematic science must lose 

 standing, because its tentative conclusions fail to satisfy that desire 

 for concrete knowledge of things as they are which it seems to be the 

 appointed mission of science in our day to provide. It has yet to 

 prove its competency, in the field of social phenomena as mostly 

 elsewhere, to present things in those aspects which modern science 

 has taught us to regard as indispensable for their appreciation. It 

 cuts out of the field of vision, under the name of "disturbing causes " 

 or what not, precisely those things which interest the man on the 

 street. 



If this version of the matter be sound, it cannot but be cause for 

 serious misgiving that so much of the intellectual energy of the 

 economists of the present day that is being devoted to theory should 

 have taken such a lead. It lends substance to the criticism some- 

 times leveled against economics by the adepts of other sciences that 

 it is behind the times in its adherence to outworn methods of hand- 

 ling its subject-matter. There seems to be room, if indeed there is 

 not much need, for work of a different type from that which has 

 been engaging the attention of the Neo-Classical School. Progress 

 demands it. 



And much the same may be said of the interesting diversion 

 created by the Austrians. However much they may have done to 

 advance the discussion of a particular detail of economic theory, 

 albeit an important one, their achievement is not to be rated as a 

 serious innovation for the science as a whole. Indeed, the ready 

 assimilation of the doctrines of the Austrians into the body of the 

 classical economics shows how near they were in temperament and 

 standpoint to the school they set out to supplant. The movement 

 has apparently spent its force and the science goes its accustomed 

 way. 



What shall be said of the historical movement? To it is usually 

 accorded the place of chief importance in the history of the reaction. 

 It made its appearance about the middle of the century with the 

 intention of saving political economy from its unprofitable career. 



