This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ralph E. Ancil, “Röpke and Von Mises: The Difference,”The Wilhelm Röpke Review (Winter/Spring 1994): 5–6.
Ancil is not alone among American conservatives in drawing sharp distinction between Röpke and the other Austrians, especially Mises. One example among many: “Unlike many of the ‘Austrian’ and ‘monetarist’ economists,” writes Gregory Wolfe, “whose ideas about human nature and government are shallow, and influenced primarily by abstract individualism, Röpke was a man of broad culture “Right Minds: A Sourcebook of American Conservative Thought, (Chicago: Regnery Books, 1987), p. 174.
Wilhelm Röpke, “End of an Era?” (1933), in —,Against the Tide (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1969), p. 8, emphasis in original.
Röpke, “The Intellectuals and Capitalism” (1931), in Gregory Wolfe,Against the Tide, p. 28.
Röpke, “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: On the Nature of the Welfare State” (1958), in Gregory Wolfe,Against the Tide, p. 210.
Röpke, “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: On the Nature of the Welfare State” (1958), in Gregory Wolfe,Against the Tide, p. 212.
Röpke, “End of an Era?” p. 91.
Wilhelm Röpke,Economics of the Free Society (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1963), p. 4.
—, p. 197.
—, p. 247.
Wilhelm Röpke,A Humane Economy (South Bend, Ind.: Gateway Editions, 1960), p. 28.
Röpke,Economics of the Free Society, p. 186.
Röpke,Economics of the Free Society, p. 236.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 27.
Röpke,Economics of the Free Society, p. 254.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 121.
Röpke, “Preface to the English Language Edition,” p. v.
Röpke, “Preface to the English Language Edition,” p. 121.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 106–7. As for the supposed economism of which Mises is sometimes accused, Mises himself says “it was a fundamental mistake ... to interpret economics as the characterization of the behavior of an ideal type, thehomo oeconomicus. According to this doctrine traditional or orthodox economics does not deal with the behavior of man as he really is and acts, but with a fictitious or hypothical image. It pictures a being driven exclusively by ‘economic’ motives, i.e., solely by the intention of making the greatest possible material or monetary profit. Such a being, say these critics, does not have and never did have a counterpart in reality it is a phantom of a spurious are not at all influenced by this mean craving. It is vain to refer to such an illusory homunculus in dealing with life and history,” Ludwig von Mises,Human Action (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1966), p 62. While Mises thought classical economics was too often caricatured in this regard, he further clarified matters byinsisting economists should not studyhomo oeconomicus buthomo agens, i.e. acting man. In Contrast to those who would rank Mises among the materialists, Mises himself writes that “[1]n reality no food is valued solely for its nutritive power and no garment or house solely for the protection it affords against cold weather and rain. It cannot be denied that the demand for goads is widely influenced by metaphysical, religious, and ethical considerations, by aesthetic value judgments, by customs, habits, prejudices, tradition, changing fashions, and many other things. To an economist who would try to restrict his investigations to ‘material’ aspects only, the subject matter of inquiry vanishes as soon as he wants to catch it.” Röpke, “Preface to the English Language Edition,” p. 234. Röpke held the identical view: “The ordinary man is not such ahomo oeconomicus, just as he is neither hero nor saint. The motives which drive, peole toward economic success are as varied as the human soul itself” RöpkeA Humane Economy, p. 121.
Röpke,Economics of the Free Society, p. 256.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 259.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 255.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 87.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 261.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 99.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 247.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 30.
F.A. Hayek,The Fortunes of Liberalism: Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 196.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 6.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 237.
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 33
Röpke,A Humane Economy, p. 118.
Röpke, “Keynes and the Revolution in Economics”, (1952), in Röpke,Against the Tide, p. 180.
F.A. Hayek, “Introduction,” to the German edition of Mises'sNotes and Recollections, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, trans.,Austrian Economics Newsletter (Fall 1988): 1–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pongracic, I. How different were röpke and mises?. Rev Austrian Econ 10, 125–132 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02538146
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02538146