368 BEPORT— 1894. 



from their extreme tendencies, these afford not unsatisfactory means of 

 distinction. Speaking broadly, they may be placed in two groups— those in 

 which the dominant influence is realistic or empii'ical ; those in which it is 

 theoretical or abstract. Very few economists, whether teachers or writers, 

 are wholly realistic or wholly theoretical. Some bias, however, they 

 nearly all have, and it is by that they may be ranked for the present 

 purpose. Nor must it be supposed that the distinctions drawn in one 

 country, with regard to these opposing lines of study, at all cori-espond 

 with those existing in another. In Germany, for instance, the attitude of 

 Professor Wagner is attacked by the members of the historical school — 

 one branch of the empirical — but judged by the standards of France and 

 England he would rank in the main as an empiricist. The theorists of 

 Germany and Austria do little more than assert that theoretical study 

 has its due jDlace and is a necessary part of the equipment of an eco- 

 nomist. 



"When discussing the assertion that compulsory Economics, however 

 enforced, tended to issue in perfunctory attendances and poor results so 

 far as interest was concerned, it was urged that these consequences 

 depended largely on the method and nature of study. This is remarkably 

 illustrated by the fact that the countries where such evils are regretted 

 or anticipated are those where the study of Economics is mainly theoretic, 

 or where Economics is distinctly and openly subordinated to other subjects. 

 Lessons of this latter kind are never thrown away upon students. But 

 with regard to the former, it is not from the southern states of the 

 German Empire, or from Austria, that we hear these complaints. There 

 economic study is obligatory, and the economic study involved is two- 

 thirds of it empirical in character. In the Latin countries the state of 

 things is very different. The basis of study is, if I may say so, text-book 

 theory, and the position of Economics, so far as progress is concerned, is 

 unsatisfactory in the extreme. This has been particularly dealt with in 

 the paragraphs relating to Italy. 



In two of the gi'eat nations the mode of study practised is largely 

 empirical. In Germany, despite the contrast between different leaders of 

 thought, the importance of this method is well illustrated by the position 

 which the study of Practical or Applied Economics invariably occupies. 

 In America, the study of economic history and of modern economic fact 

 grows into greater j^rominence year by year. 



(3) Turning to the question of success, the question arises at once as 

 to the tests whereby such may be measured. Of these, many, varying 

 from popularity to eclecticism, have been suggested, but possibly the one 

 most suitable is the ability of a system to produce a high general level 

 amongst a good number of students. Something more is required of a 

 system than that it should bring together large audiences for elementary 

 courses ; while, as for the production of a few very good students, a few 

 will always press to the front through all difficulties, despite systems good 

 or bad, or in the absence of any system at all. But a system that is to 

 be deemed good must place within the reach of all industrious and apt 

 students the means of a good general economic training, while stimulating 

 him to prosecute original and independent work. Further, it should 

 provide these advantages regularly and not intermittently. The way in 

 which these two needs are met in practice can be stated briefly. General 

 ti-aining is provided by a systematic series of courses which should include 

 at least Theory of Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance. The 



