What do you think?
Rate this book
Wilhelm Ropke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist
Wilhelm Röpke is probably the most unjustly neglected economist and social critic of the twentieth century. Exiled by Hitler's regime, Röpke was a passionate critic of socialism and the welfare state who was nonetheless keenly attuned to the limits of capitalism. John Zmirak's Wilhelm Röpke, written with the touch of an accomplished writer and journalist, ably demonstrates that Röpke's humane yet sophisticated "Third Way" economics can play a vital role in shaping appropriate policies to reflect the growing communitarian consensus.
229 pages, Hardcover
First published December 3, 2000
5 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 30, 2022
The economist Wilhelm Ropke, more than perhaps any individual except Ludwig Erhard (who was Ropke's protege before he became West German finance minister and then Chancellor), was responsible for the West German Wirtschaftwunder. But he has received little attention in the English-speaking world. As this book shows, he was a small town boy, son of a rural doctor, who idolized the German Plattdeutsch world from which he came. He studied at many of Germany's best universities, fought in World War I, was attracted briefly to socialism, and then became enamored of the free market beliefs of Ludwig von Mises. Although he became a professor at the University of Marburg, his liberal leanings made him a target in the 1920s, and in 1933 he was fired after a full-throated attack against Nazism. After a brief stint in Turkey, he spent most of his life teaching outside Zurich writing about the need to free the economy from the state's shackles.
Ropke invented the term "the third way," and, along with his friend Walter Eucken, celebrated the West German "social market economy." As this book makes clear, the social market was not a welfare state, as Ropke saw it, because he distrusted the deadening influence of state provision. He saw capitalism's failures as mainly spiritual, which is why this descendent of Lutheran pastors began to identify more with the Catholic popes who celebrated the need for small scale economies. He liked the cantons of the Swiss, the Mittelstand German companies, and small, separate cities. He wanted more antitrust, more attention to property-owning individuals, and more state-encouragement of voluntary groups. He came to fear to the increasing socialization of the actual West German state in the years leading to his death in 1966. (The book ignores Ropke's extensive and forthright defenses of South Africa and Rhodesia as demonstrating necessary segregation when peoples had different levels of "civilization.")
This book is mainly a somewhat confused overview of Ropke's main books, such as "International Economic Disintegration" (written for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1942), "The Solution to the German Question (1947) (which helped Erhard end price controls and introduce the deutschmark despite US and especially French resistance) and the "Economics of the Free Society" (1963 where he described some of his critiques of contemporary life.) Ropke's actual life, and his relationship between his life and his concrete critiques, are mainly left out of this book. I wish there was a clearer treatment out there.
Ropke invented the term "the third way," and, along with his friend Walter Eucken, celebrated the West German "social market economy." As this book makes clear, the social market was not a welfare state, as Ropke saw it, because he distrusted the deadening influence of state provision. He saw capitalism's failures as mainly spiritual, which is why this descendent of Lutheran pastors began to identify more with the Catholic popes who celebrated the need for small scale economies. He liked the cantons of the Swiss, the Mittelstand German companies, and small, separate cities. He wanted more antitrust, more attention to property-owning individuals, and more state-encouragement of voluntary groups. He came to fear to the increasing socialization of the actual West German state in the years leading to his death in 1966. (The book ignores Ropke's extensive and forthright defenses of South Africa and Rhodesia as demonstrating necessary segregation when peoples had different levels of "civilization.")
This book is mainly a somewhat confused overview of Ropke's main books, such as "International Economic Disintegration" (written for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1942), "The Solution to the German Question (1947) (which helped Erhard end price controls and introduce the deutschmark despite US and especially French resistance) and the "Economics of the Free Society" (1963 where he described some of his critiques of contemporary life.) Ropke's actual life, and his relationship between his life and his concrete critiques, are mainly left out of this book. I wish there was a clearer treatment out there.
November 18, 2020
Wilhelm Ropke may be the most important economist for our time. Of course, coming from me, a man with no economic bona fides, this means very little. But, nonetheless, I believe it to be true. John Zmirak has done a great service by offering this introduction to Ropke’s life and work.
Ropke lived most of his life as an exile, driven out of his German homeland by the Nazi regime as it came to power. He wouldn’t bow to fascism and it costs him dearly. He eventually settled in Geneva where he taught and wrote for the rest of his life. He spent most of his career working to answer a fundamental question that faces 21st Century America: what are the social underpinnings necessary to support the free market?
It was important for Ropke to situate his social and economic philosophy within the broader traditions around him, to distance himself from socialism and fascism but also to distance himself (on the finer points) from the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics with whom he shared much in common. He was a personal friend and colleague to Freidrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Yet, Ropke was more willing to admit of the flaws of unrestrained capitalism, and, further, to oppose these flaws in order to protect the viability of the market economy. And for this distinction he took up the mantle of the “Third Way”, that of “economic humanism” and of the “social market economy.”
Ropke’s praise and defense of the market economy came from a different political philosophy than his Austrian colleagues. Instead of holding to a libertarian philosophy—such as “utilitarianism or secular liberalism (represented by Mises and Hayek, respectively)”—he built from traditional conservative principles and Christian humanism. This shaped his whole outlook of economic activity and the sustainability of the free market. This shift away from secular liberalism was not a nominal difference. He saw the consequences of founding an economic philosophy on secularism: “Above all, man is Homo religiosus, and yet we have, for the past century, made the desperate attempt to get along without God, and in place of God we have set up the cult of man, his profane or even ungodly science and art, his technical achievements, and his State...This self-idolatry has created a situation in which man can have no spiritual and moral life, and this means that he cannot exist as man for any length of time.” (Ropke, A Humane Economy)
This social and political philosophy was at odds with the abstract, absolute liberty championed by secular humanism or rational liberalism. Instead his vision of liberty sided with the ordered liberty of Edmund Burke and the Christian tradition over the a priori methods of Mill and Rousseau. “As soon as reason frees itself from these limits and peremptorily announces its independence, trouble ensues: such is the case of the ethical sophist who, proud of having used his reason to unmask justice as ‘ideology,’ arrogantly ignores the most certain thing in the world, man’s moral compass, in brief, his conscience; such again is the case of the liberal fanatic who, postulating absolute feedom, forgets that freedom without constraint will end in the worst kind of bondage; further, there is the apostle of equality who airily dismissed the brutal truth that the essence of life is in inequality and variety; the same applies to the socialist who guides his ideal state laws without taking man’s unalterable nature and the anthropologically vital character of property into account; it is likewise true of the liberal, who, desiring to turn competitive economy into a precision machine based entirely on men’s rational behavior, forces working and living conditions upon them against which their nature finally rebels.” (Ropke, Social Crisis of Our Time).
This may seem like a minor distinction but it has a major impact when we turn to his economic analysis. The free market, despite what some may think, is not free floating. A truly free market is possible only in certain environments, and Ropke helpfully articulated the proper conditions a social market economy. He stressed the moral foundations of civil society and the institutions, social norms, and religious commitments necessary to preserve a free market. He argued that “the free market and liberal government are fragile historical artifacts that cannot long exist in the absence of certain noneconomic institutions. These include the family, religious faith, abiding standards of business ethics, a strong and predictable legal framework for commerce, regulations for the restraint of monopolies, slow population growth, and a widespread distribution of economic and political power.”
In Ropke’s view, economics is a ministerial discipline; so his economic policy finds its place within a social and political framework. “His vision is more societal than economic; he constantly strove to see man’s life as a whole, as a spiritual and material endeavor subject to a genuine hierarchy of values that any ‘humane economy’ must respect.” This was part of his genius. To this end, he “centered his economics in the dignity of the human person, who lives not alone but as part of a family and a community; who thrives or suffers according to the health of those institutions.”
Because of his broader vision, he was better positioned to see the path down which capitalism unrestrained can lead. Many in his day were swept up in the rhetoric and false promise of socialism and the planned economy. They saw the centralization of property and power into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, which they identified with capitalism, and grew discontent. Ropke was one of few economist able to perceive the flaws of capitalism while also recognizing the good. Because of this, “he was able to offer a cogent defense of the fundamental truths that the market economy embodied—truths about human nature and human economy, about how men work and why they work, and how they may cooperate most effectively to maximize the common good.” But, turning to the flaws, he recognized the “corrosive side effects of contemporary capitalism”: “Who can really be at ease in the presence of the growing concentration in economic life, which goes hand in hand with the increasing dependence of the masses? Who can fail to see that our civilization is being destroyed by the progressive commercialization of things that are beyond economics, by the oppressive business spirit that confuses ends and means and forgets that man does not live in order to work, but works in order to live, and thus perverts all human values, by the empty hustle and sterile excitement of our time?” (Ropke, Against the Tide). Could not Americans in 2020 say the same?
Ropke warned of “proletarianisation”, which has a devastating effect on the “intermediate forms of order—local government, voluntary associations, an independent Church...” (123). Ropke saw the roots of our social crisis in collectivism and “mass society.” And here is where Ropke departs from his Austrian peers: he allowed for “compatible” market interventions (a term of art that is contrasted with “incompatible” market interventions that affect the price mechanism) in order to protect the integrity of the market economy and to remedy the socially corrosive effects of contemporary capitalism.
These interventions where allowed not to subvert the freedom of the market but to protect the social order on which the free market depends. In this, Ropke was a true friend of liberty; he “strove for the greatest liberty possible for as long as possible, within the constraints of human nature. He sought, he always insisted, to interfere as little as possible with the free economic and other choices of individuals, except in order to preserve the social and political framework that made freedom possible over the generations.” (174). Limited compatible interventions are necessary to guard against the “destructive tendencies contained within capitalism as traditionally practiced” and which lead to social disorder. Here, Ropke primarily has in mind the proletariat problem. Historically, the proletariat problem is resolved in one of two ways: (1) by all becoming proletariat (either by Revolution, as in Russia, or slowly by degrees, as in most other counties), or (2) by converting the proletariat into property owners and restoring dignity. Ropke allowed for market interventions aimed at accomplishing the latter. And he had two primary market interventions in mind:
(1) Distributive Ownership of Productive Property. The gradual dissemination of ownership of the means of production among the middle and working class”, a la G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc’s distributism. This would be accomplished not by the state redistributing property coercively and directly but through “a scheme of legal, regulatory and tax incentives”. (179). Ropke was emphatic that the family, as the “bedrock social unit of any healthy society” must be protected and affirmed.
(2) Antitrust Enforcement. Ropke felt that the state must take an active, agressive policy to fight monopolies. antitrust regimens are meant to “prevent mergers of large businesses and the concentration of ownership in the hands of the few.”
It is important to remember that these interventions to the market economy are the rare exception and not the norm; they are never to affect the price mechanism; and they are only meant as “transitional measures” to promote a free and orderly society.
Here the libertarian will cry foul. To the libertarian the market is sacrosanct. Economic salvation comes through the market and by allowing it to act unrestrained. But why should we exalt the market mechanism so? “By placing the market at the heart of a scheme of secular providence, the old [classical] liberals had created the expectation that a nation’s economic system must be the engine of progress, the ground of social solidarity and the chief ethical educator for that society.” Ropke appreciated and respected the market but did not idolize it. His system recognized economic order as a subset of social and political order, and each of these as a subset of a transcendent order. He understood that the market isn’t primary; the common good of society and true political and social freedom are higher goals. And, besides, “no market economy could long survive in an unfree society.” (79). So the market must serve man, not man the market.
Wilhelm Ropke deserves a larger audience and this book should help facilitate that.
Ropke lived most of his life as an exile, driven out of his German homeland by the Nazi regime as it came to power. He wouldn’t bow to fascism and it costs him dearly. He eventually settled in Geneva where he taught and wrote for the rest of his life. He spent most of his career working to answer a fundamental question that faces 21st Century America: what are the social underpinnings necessary to support the free market?
It was important for Ropke to situate his social and economic philosophy within the broader traditions around him, to distance himself from socialism and fascism but also to distance himself (on the finer points) from the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics with whom he shared much in common. He was a personal friend and colleague to Freidrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Yet, Ropke was more willing to admit of the flaws of unrestrained capitalism, and, further, to oppose these flaws in order to protect the viability of the market economy. And for this distinction he took up the mantle of the “Third Way”, that of “economic humanism” and of the “social market economy.”
Ropke’s praise and defense of the market economy came from a different political philosophy than his Austrian colleagues. Instead of holding to a libertarian philosophy—such as “utilitarianism or secular liberalism (represented by Mises and Hayek, respectively)”—he built from traditional conservative principles and Christian humanism. This shaped his whole outlook of economic activity and the sustainability of the free market. This shift away from secular liberalism was not a nominal difference. He saw the consequences of founding an economic philosophy on secularism: “Above all, man is Homo religiosus, and yet we have, for the past century, made the desperate attempt to get along without God, and in place of God we have set up the cult of man, his profane or even ungodly science and art, his technical achievements, and his State...This self-idolatry has created a situation in which man can have no spiritual and moral life, and this means that he cannot exist as man for any length of time.” (Ropke, A Humane Economy)
This social and political philosophy was at odds with the abstract, absolute liberty championed by secular humanism or rational liberalism. Instead his vision of liberty sided with the ordered liberty of Edmund Burke and the Christian tradition over the a priori methods of Mill and Rousseau. “As soon as reason frees itself from these limits and peremptorily announces its independence, trouble ensues: such is the case of the ethical sophist who, proud of having used his reason to unmask justice as ‘ideology,’ arrogantly ignores the most certain thing in the world, man’s moral compass, in brief, his conscience; such again is the case of the liberal fanatic who, postulating absolute feedom, forgets that freedom without constraint will end in the worst kind of bondage; further, there is the apostle of equality who airily dismissed the brutal truth that the essence of life is in inequality and variety; the same applies to the socialist who guides his ideal state laws without taking man’s unalterable nature and the anthropologically vital character of property into account; it is likewise true of the liberal, who, desiring to turn competitive economy into a precision machine based entirely on men’s rational behavior, forces working and living conditions upon them against which their nature finally rebels.” (Ropke, Social Crisis of Our Time).
This may seem like a minor distinction but it has a major impact when we turn to his economic analysis. The free market, despite what some may think, is not free floating. A truly free market is possible only in certain environments, and Ropke helpfully articulated the proper conditions a social market economy. He stressed the moral foundations of civil society and the institutions, social norms, and religious commitments necessary to preserve a free market. He argued that “the free market and liberal government are fragile historical artifacts that cannot long exist in the absence of certain noneconomic institutions. These include the family, religious faith, abiding standards of business ethics, a strong and predictable legal framework for commerce, regulations for the restraint of monopolies, slow population growth, and a widespread distribution of economic and political power.”
In Ropke’s view, economics is a ministerial discipline; so his economic policy finds its place within a social and political framework. “His vision is more societal than economic; he constantly strove to see man’s life as a whole, as a spiritual and material endeavor subject to a genuine hierarchy of values that any ‘humane economy’ must respect.” This was part of his genius. To this end, he “centered his economics in the dignity of the human person, who lives not alone but as part of a family and a community; who thrives or suffers according to the health of those institutions.”
Because of his broader vision, he was better positioned to see the path down which capitalism unrestrained can lead. Many in his day were swept up in the rhetoric and false promise of socialism and the planned economy. They saw the centralization of property and power into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, which they identified with capitalism, and grew discontent. Ropke was one of few economist able to perceive the flaws of capitalism while also recognizing the good. Because of this, “he was able to offer a cogent defense of the fundamental truths that the market economy embodied—truths about human nature and human economy, about how men work and why they work, and how they may cooperate most effectively to maximize the common good.” But, turning to the flaws, he recognized the “corrosive side effects of contemporary capitalism”: “Who can really be at ease in the presence of the growing concentration in economic life, which goes hand in hand with the increasing dependence of the masses? Who can fail to see that our civilization is being destroyed by the progressive commercialization of things that are beyond economics, by the oppressive business spirit that confuses ends and means and forgets that man does not live in order to work, but works in order to live, and thus perverts all human values, by the empty hustle and sterile excitement of our time?” (Ropke, Against the Tide). Could not Americans in 2020 say the same?
Ropke warned of “proletarianisation”, which has a devastating effect on the “intermediate forms of order—local government, voluntary associations, an independent Church...” (123). Ropke saw the roots of our social crisis in collectivism and “mass society.” And here is where Ropke departs from his Austrian peers: he allowed for “compatible” market interventions (a term of art that is contrasted with “incompatible” market interventions that affect the price mechanism) in order to protect the integrity of the market economy and to remedy the socially corrosive effects of contemporary capitalism.
These interventions where allowed not to subvert the freedom of the market but to protect the social order on which the free market depends. In this, Ropke was a true friend of liberty; he “strove for the greatest liberty possible for as long as possible, within the constraints of human nature. He sought, he always insisted, to interfere as little as possible with the free economic and other choices of individuals, except in order to preserve the social and political framework that made freedom possible over the generations.” (174). Limited compatible interventions are necessary to guard against the “destructive tendencies contained within capitalism as traditionally practiced” and which lead to social disorder. Here, Ropke primarily has in mind the proletariat problem. Historically, the proletariat problem is resolved in one of two ways: (1) by all becoming proletariat (either by Revolution, as in Russia, or slowly by degrees, as in most other counties), or (2) by converting the proletariat into property owners and restoring dignity. Ropke allowed for market interventions aimed at accomplishing the latter. And he had two primary market interventions in mind:
(1) Distributive Ownership of Productive Property. The gradual dissemination of ownership of the means of production among the middle and working class”, a la G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc’s distributism. This would be accomplished not by the state redistributing property coercively and directly but through “a scheme of legal, regulatory and tax incentives”. (179). Ropke was emphatic that the family, as the “bedrock social unit of any healthy society” must be protected and affirmed.
(2) Antitrust Enforcement. Ropke felt that the state must take an active, agressive policy to fight monopolies. antitrust regimens are meant to “prevent mergers of large businesses and the concentration of ownership in the hands of the few.”
It is important to remember that these interventions to the market economy are the rare exception and not the norm; they are never to affect the price mechanism; and they are only meant as “transitional measures” to promote a free and orderly society.
Here the libertarian will cry foul. To the libertarian the market is sacrosanct. Economic salvation comes through the market and by allowing it to act unrestrained. But why should we exalt the market mechanism so? “By placing the market at the heart of a scheme of secular providence, the old [classical] liberals had created the expectation that a nation’s economic system must be the engine of progress, the ground of social solidarity and the chief ethical educator for that society.” Ropke appreciated and respected the market but did not idolize it. His system recognized economic order as a subset of social and political order, and each of these as a subset of a transcendent order. He understood that the market isn’t primary; the common good of society and true political and social freedom are higher goals. And, besides, “no market economy could long survive in an unfree society.” (79). So the market must serve man, not man the market.
Wilhelm Ropke deserves a larger audience and this book should help facilitate that.
June 24, 2020
Recently I made a purchase of a handful of books written by an internet acquaintance of mine [1], and this was the first one of them that I got around to reading. I must admit that while I have some interest in the Austrian School of Economics [2], that this economist is not one that I had on my radar. I had the expectation going into the book that it would be a good one but none whatsoever about the character of the book's subject. I have to say I was very impressed, though, by the way that the author paints Ropke as being deeply concerned not only with the free market itself, but with the society in which that free market exists, and in the avoidance of concentration of power and wealth in too few hands. Needless to say, while I did not go into this book knowing much about the author, I definitely have finished the book with a deep interest in knowing a lot more about what he had to say, and that is a success as far as I am concerned as a reader of economics and history.
This book is a short one at about 200 pages. It begins with acknowledgements and abbreviations and references. After that the author discusses Ropke as a man for the twenty-first century, showing how his anti-socialist perspective and his concern for the well-being of ordinary people make him a worthwhile economist for contemporaries to be more familiar with (1). This leads to a discussion of how Ropke's hostility to the Nazis led him to exile first in Turkey and then in Switzerland (2), where he gave a warning to the people of his time about the war that was coming and the dangers that were resulting from the economic problems faced during the Depression (3). The author discusses the modern crisis of socialism in various forms as well as the tendency for that which was called capitalism to be crony capitalism with feudalistic holdovers (4). The defeat of Germany and the enthusiasm of the German conservatives for his economic thinking allowed it to strongly influence Germany's rise from the ashes (5), and to the establishment of an ideal for a "third way" between the pitiless extremes of many market enthusiasts on the one hand and the utter failures of leftist economics (6). The book ends with endnotes and an index.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ropke and his world was that in the aftermath of World War I and World War II he refused to cheer on any of the sorts of socialism that were then in favor, opposing the autarchy that was common to versions of National Socialism as well as the protectionist tariffs of the Great Depression as well as the distortions to the well-being of people that came about from Socialism. Despite being strongly anti-socialist, though, Ropke understood the need for economics to serve the well-being of ordinary people, and this in his mind meant a support for local and community institutions that were able to provide for the general welfare of people, and even the support of the establishment of specialty farming to preserve family farms as an economically competitive endeavor in the face of free global trade and the reduction of trade barriers. The fact that Ropke's thinking helped to inspire the West German economic "miracle" that led to German's current strength and the resolute opposition to inflation is all the more remarkable and makes it all the more worthwhile to know about him and his influence on contemporary economics, despite his general obscurity to many people today.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
This book is a short one at about 200 pages. It begins with acknowledgements and abbreviations and references. After that the author discusses Ropke as a man for the twenty-first century, showing how his anti-socialist perspective and his concern for the well-being of ordinary people make him a worthwhile economist for contemporaries to be more familiar with (1). This leads to a discussion of how Ropke's hostility to the Nazis led him to exile first in Turkey and then in Switzerland (2), where he gave a warning to the people of his time about the war that was coming and the dangers that were resulting from the economic problems faced during the Depression (3). The author discusses the modern crisis of socialism in various forms as well as the tendency for that which was called capitalism to be crony capitalism with feudalistic holdovers (4). The defeat of Germany and the enthusiasm of the German conservatives for his economic thinking allowed it to strongly influence Germany's rise from the ashes (5), and to the establishment of an ideal for a "third way" between the pitiless extremes of many market enthusiasts on the one hand and the utter failures of leftist economics (6). The book ends with endnotes and an index.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ropke and his world was that in the aftermath of World War I and World War II he refused to cheer on any of the sorts of socialism that were then in favor, opposing the autarchy that was common to versions of National Socialism as well as the protectionist tariffs of the Great Depression as well as the distortions to the well-being of people that came about from Socialism. Despite being strongly anti-socialist, though, Ropke understood the need for economics to serve the well-being of ordinary people, and this in his mind meant a support for local and community institutions that were able to provide for the general welfare of people, and even the support of the establishment of specialty farming to preserve family farms as an economically competitive endeavor in the face of free global trade and the reduction of trade barriers. The fact that Ropke's thinking helped to inspire the West German economic "miracle" that led to German's current strength and the resolute opposition to inflation is all the more remarkable and makes it all the more worthwhile to know about him and his influence on contemporary economics, despite his general obscurity to many people today.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
May 14, 2019
A well written book that was not unpleasant to read, this biography unfortunately provides little to the Catholic seeking insights on the problem of Capitalism and modern economics.
Ropke is a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and proponent of the gold standard and secular democracy while somehow also claiming to value the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. He accomplishes this feat by talking a lot about localism and subsidiarity, which basically means if you're lucky enough to be a member of the bourgeoisie owning your own property or business, good for you - urbanites and the working poor are screwed.
Zmirak relates that Ropke's ideals inspired the Christian Democracy movement in post-WW2 Germany but notes they were ultimately unsuccessful. Why? Because the power of Capital was too strong for the weak liberals to counter. Ropke's (and Zmirak's) foolish faith in liberalism means that the one government & economy actually inspired by Quadragesimo Anno, Salazar's Portugal, never gets a mention. To add insult to injury, the noble illiberal Falange of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera is dismissed as a band of street thugs.
It is a mystery why Zmirak is so taken by this Lutheran neoliberal! Is the Catholic tradition so impoverished we must turn to protestants? Definitely not.
Ropke is a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and proponent of the gold standard and secular democracy while somehow also claiming to value the papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. He accomplishes this feat by talking a lot about localism and subsidiarity, which basically means if you're lucky enough to be a member of the bourgeoisie owning your own property or business, good for you - urbanites and the working poor are screwed.
Zmirak relates that Ropke's ideals inspired the Christian Democracy movement in post-WW2 Germany but notes they were ultimately unsuccessful. Why? Because the power of Capital was too strong for the weak liberals to counter. Ropke's (and Zmirak's) foolish faith in liberalism means that the one government & economy actually inspired by Quadragesimo Anno, Salazar's Portugal, never gets a mention. To add insult to injury, the noble illiberal Falange of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera is dismissed as a band of street thugs.
It is a mystery why Zmirak is so taken by this Lutheran neoliberal! Is the Catholic tradition so impoverished we must turn to protestants? Definitely not.
January 4, 2017
A solid intellectual biography, and I think quite timely, too. Many of Ropke's ideas and his synthesis of conservatism with free market liberalism have increased relevance in the current economic climate. I think in particular of his misgivings about 'proletariatisation' and his admission that this process is the result of natural market forces. Ropke rightly saw that a rootless, propertyless society of proles are not the ideal subjects to maintain a liberal order. He saw the need to rectify this without disrupting the price mechanism and creating an intolerable, intrusive bureaucracy; emphasising property ownership and other forms of self-reliance rather than demeaning welfare schemes.
Ropke will prove to be more relevant in the Trump era. A certain kind of 'autistic' libertarian economics once dominant in the GOP and Beltway Right think-tanks has been rightly shoved aside, and something sensible needs to fill that gap. Policy wonks on the right need to stop repeating mantras from the 70's and 80's (which may very well have been needed then) and perhaps pick up Ropke instead.
Ropke will prove to be more relevant in the Trump era. A certain kind of 'autistic' libertarian economics once dominant in the GOP and Beltway Right think-tanks has been rightly shoved aside, and something sensible needs to fill that gap. Policy wonks on the right need to stop repeating mantras from the 70's and 80's (which may very well have been needed then) and perhaps pick up Ropke instead.
February 2, 2014
Very interesting intellectual biography of 20th-Century economist Wilhelm Roepke. There are a lot of interesting tidbits to Roepke's backstory that really piqued my curiosity, like the fact he almost emigrated to America after being kicked out of Hitler's Germany in the 30's, but soon went to Switzerland primarily because he didn't like America, the land of "big things" which did not sit well with the local-minded Roepke. Though I think that was because he never visited West Virginia. ;)
Highly recommend this work as an introduction to a criminally underrated and unknown economist who advocated a "third way" between the Corporatism of America and the Socialism of Europe.
Highly recommend this work as an introduction to a criminally underrated and unknown economist who advocated a "third way" between the Corporatism of America and the Socialism of Europe.
October 5, 2010
Great biography of a great thinker, economist, social philosopher, and perhaps prophet (basic thesis is that the size of government and degree of collectivism rises when the social associations or intermediate institutions like the family and the church deteriorate).
November 6, 2014
A short, engaging read. It was well-written and well-researched enough that I wish it was longer: it could have been a more in-depth study of Röpke's works.
Read
November 21, 2009None
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews