Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Ivan Kinkel's (1883–1945) theory of economic development

2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 22; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09672567.2013.792367

1469-5936

Nikolay Nenovsky,

Culture, Economy, and Development Studies

AbstractThis paper presents and discusses the “Attempt at Constructing a New Theory of Economic Development and Cultural Cycles”, published by the Bulgarian economist and sociologist of Russian origin, Ivan Kinkel (1883–1945) in 1921. Kinkel's theory, although unknown outside Bulgarian academic circles, carries a range of original ideas and new insights within the frame of Schmollerprogramm. It emphasises the importance of studying economic development as sociocultural evolutionary change, focuses on the role of unity in social life and the plurality of human motives and attempts to methodologically link theory and history into a multidisciplinary approach. Kinkel's work in general, and his theory of cyclical development in particular, can not only be of value for the study of economic thought and the diffusion of ideas, but can also offer insights into the forces underlying the profound changes that we have been witnessing recently.Keywords: History of economic thoughthistorical schoolBulgariaRussiaJEL classifications: B10B20B30N13N14G01 AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Ninel Kioseva, Pencho Penchev and Stefan Kolev for helpful comments on the preliminary version of this paper.Abbreviations BAS – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences=AESP – Archive for Economic and Social Policy=HSC – Higher School of Commerce, Varna=ASSFAS – Annual of the State School of Financial and Administrative Sciences, Sofia=AUS (FL) – Annual of the University of Sofia, Faculty of Law=JBES – Journal of the Bulgarian Economic Society=NL – St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library=Notes1 On Russian intellectual émigrés to Bulgaria in general, see (National Library Citation2006).2 The most internationally renowned among them is, of course, Oskar Anderson, one of the founders of statistical and business cycle analyses, who contributed greatly to the formation of a school of Bulgarian scholars and was in touch with the most prominent economists of his time. He was also mentioned in Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis and ended his career in Germany.3 As for Simeon Demostenov, he, in my view, made significant contributions to pure theory by further developing a set of constructs for the Austrian analysis and for the theory and history of money.4 A few of the most distinctive names to mention here are Sergey Bulgakov, Peter Struve, Mihail Tugan-Baranovsky, Joseph Kulisher, Nikolay Berdiyaev, Semyon Frank, Alexander Bogdanov, etc. Simeon Demostenov and Ivan Kinkel had both Russian (Peter Struve was their mentor) as well as Western education: Demostenov studied in Germany and Austria (he associated with Carl Menger), and Kinkel – in Switzerland and Germany. Curiously, Demsotenov is burred in London (Hendon Cemetery) next to Semyon Frank.5 See Ebner Citation(2000), Peukert Citation(2001), Shionoya Citation(2001), and obviously Schmoller Citation(1905/1906 [1900]).6 This happened for various reasons: the perception of the ongoing processes as the “end of history”, the end of the big changes, a smooth and crisis-free development in a market economy, a democracy within an EU setting, etc. To paraphrase Bertram Schefold, all global studies and reflections disappeared from the post-communist economic analysis like the cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland – “it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone” (Schefold Citation1999)).7 According to the University of Sofia Almanac, he came to Bulgaria in early 1917 before the October Revolution, a fact that coincides with the information given by Kiril Grigorov who wrote that Kinkel came to Bulgaria for health reasons after he had been a member of the Eser party (Grigorov Citation1960, p. 128). Meanwhile, I found some new facts of Kinkel's life in the archival record of his wife – the sociologist Mara Kinkel (1885–1960). This record (National Archive, 620/1/22) contains Kinkel's biography in Russian. Here it becomes clear that Kinkel lost his right hand in the First Russian Revolution of 1905. He was personally invited by Lenin at the beginning of October 1917 to chair the Supreme Economic Council; however, this nomination failed because of his and his wife's ill health. Kinkel and his wife then travelled to Bulgaria using a note written personally by Lenin to cross the Russian frontier. Unfortunately, Kinkel himself had to destroy the note during their transit through Ukraine, which was at that time in the hands of the counter-revolutionary Nestor Makhno. In his wife's recollections, Kinkel said he was losing the autograph of “the most influential man of our century, the maker of a new epoch” (620/1/22/40). According to other sources, he came to Bulgaria as a member of Wrangel's army. See recent paper on Kinkel as an economic historian by Penchev Citation(2012).8 Mara Kinkel's archive record also contains Ivan Kinkel's diploma of his doctoral thesis on Aristotle's theology (Summa cum Laude) dated 8 July 1911 (MCMXI) and issued by the University of Leipzig with Ernest Hafter as his tutor and awarded by rector Arnold Meyer. Most likely, the diploma travelled with Kinkel from Germany to Russia and then to Bulgaria with his name written in Latin as Ioanni Kinkel (when translated in Western languages, Kinkel's first name often appears as Johann, Johannes, Jean and even Jan).9 Kinkel's position at the State Higher Education School of Finance and Administrative Sciences in Sofia was “part-time lecturer in history of economic development” (Kinkel Citation1943).10 Kinkel always considered the role of demographic factors as fundamental and one that explains the processes between the wars. It is, therefore, not accidental that he thought highly of Thomas Malthus, to whom he dedicated a special study (Kinkel Citation1941).11 According to Kinkel, at the time when he was writing the book, the first signs of a new cultural period IV were making themselves evident. The author called this cycle “cycle of world culture”; today we would call it “globalisation”. This cycle was not analysed in detail.12 Max Weber, for instance, analysed the difference between ancient and modern capitalism. Weber's views are subject to debate, see (Spahn Citation2004), (Schefold Citation2011).13 This term was actually not coined by Kinkel; it was popular in that period, for instance, in Gustav von Schmoller's writings Citation(1905, 1906 [1900]).14 In some of the passages, Kinkel's thoughts are surprisingly reminiscent of Karl Popper's ideas in his book about the open society and its enemies.15 I am grateful to an anonymous referee for pointing out that the only major scholar of economic development absent from the list is Schumpeter and his book from 1911. Kinkel finished his book before World War I, and the only “big” theory emerging after the war was by Waldemar Mitscherlich (1920). I suppose that Kinkel was aware of Schumpeter's book, because he mentioned him (albeit only once), alongside with other economists having an approach to capital as social relation (Kinkel Citation1921, p. 18). Nevertheless, I guess that Kinkel considered Schumpeter and Weber more preoccupied with Modern Capitalism and its evolution, and Weber, with comparative studies, while Kinkel's theory has far-reaching objectives (economic development of the whole human civilization), and its spirit is closer to the classical German historical school.16 Incidentally, the last two authors were professors at the Universities of Leipzig, Berlin and Zurich, where Kinkel himself studied or specialised (Meyer (1855–1930); Mommsen (1817–1903) and Karl Bücher (1847–1930)).17 A copy of this issue with the author's signature could be found in Karl Bücher's personal library (kept at the University of Kyoto, Bücher, 1970, 8).18 For a detailed survey on the Russian economic historian tradition, see Gloveli Citation(2008).19 As was already discussed above, in an effort to overcome the one-sidedness of a number of authors, including Karl Marx, in addition to production (productive forces) Kinkel also includes consumption (consumption forces) and culture (sociocultural needs).20 Kinkel dedicated a whole book on European and Christian ethics (Kinkel Citation1938a).21 “La psychologie des foules” by Gustav Le Bon was translated into Bulgarian in 1906.22 Also see (Johansson Citation2001, Citation2006). Actually, Kinkel's study was definitely popular not only among psychologists, but also among historians (Langer Citation1958). Interestingly, for the majority of economists and sociologists, this side of Kinkel's career is either unknown or underestimated, just as psychologists and psychoanalysts are not interested in the rest of his work.23 His side work on the history of economic sciences (Kinkel Citation1925b, Citation1936, Citation1937a, Citation1937b, Citation1939a), the article on Malthus (Kinkel Citation1941), and the two textbooks on economic history (Kinkel Citation1925, second edition 1947, as well as 1939a).24 It is worth comparing Kinkel's review with that of Georgy Danailov, who is the other recognised authority on economic theory and history (Danailov Citation1933 [1931], pp. 1–16). Whereas Kinkel makes critical remarks vis-à-vis Ivan Sakuzov for not applying a macro-economic and macro-social approach to economic phenomena and for letting himself be carried away with facts and “primitive economic chronology”, Danailov's comments are basically microeconomic by nature: Comments and critical remarks on the facts stated by Sakuzov. Danailov claims for instance that “changes in economic institutions do not always coincide with the stages in the political history of a given nation: Economic development follows its own trajectory regardless of historical events” (Danailov Citation1933 [1931], p. 5).25 Here the influence of Kinkel's teacher, the great Russian economist Peter Struve, is revealing. Struve asserts that “a systematician–economist examines the history of economic life as a processing of the historical material of economic life with the help of the systematic categories of political economy” (Struve Citation1913, p. 35). Thus, there are two ways of studying economic history: the first we could call “theoretical economic history” (Kinkel, Struve, Sombart and others) and the second – “historical economic history” (Bücher, Schmoller and Sakuzov in the case of Bulgaria).26 See Peukert Citation(2001) and Shionoya Citation(2001).