Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Musaicum Books
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
In 'The Engineers & the Price System' by Thorstein Veblen, the author provides a critical analysis of the economic system, focusing on the role of engineers in shaping production and consumption. Veblen delves into the intricate relationship between technology, industrialism, and capitalism, highlighting how engineers influence the pricing and distribution of goods. Written in a precise and academic tone, the book presents a captivating narrative that brings to light the complexities of the modern economic landscape, making it a valuable resource for students and scholars alike. Veblen's insightful observations and sociological perspective offer a unique insight into the intersection of technology and economics, shedding light on the power dynamics at play in society. Thorstein Veblen's interdisciplinary approach to economics and social theory sets 'The Engineers & the Price System' apart, making it a seminal work in the study of industrial economics and technological determinism. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the intricate workings of the price system and its impact on society. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 202
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
The Engineers & the Price System
Published by
Books
Table of Contents
Introduction
Between those who design and maintain the machinery of modern industry and those who direct investment to uphold prices, Thorstein Veblen locates a persistent struggle over whether production should serve community use or financial gain, and he threads this tension through an uncompromising inquiry into how the habits, incentives, and authorities of a price-governed order elevate business control over industrial know-how while leaving the technicians who make the system workable to buffer waste, crisis, and delay that are not technical necessities but institutional outcomes of a regime that prizes calculable returns more than the steady, cooperative functioning of its own equipment and skills.
First published in 1921, The Engineers & the Price System belongs to the tradition of economic sociology and institutional economics, written in the wake of World War I and the brief postwar slump in the United States. Veblen analyzes the industrial order that had emerged from decades of rapid mechanization and corporate consolidation, focusing on American conditions while drawing general conclusions about modern capitalism. The book originated as essays, but reads as a unified argument: a work of social analysis rather than technical economics, attentive to how organizations, professions, and business practices shape production, employment, and the everyday rhythms of machine-age life.
Readers encounter a voice that is cool, exacting, and mordantly humorous, written in a prose that mixes careful definition with controlled irony. The style is argumentative and cumulative: examples of factory routines, market behavior, and administrative decisions accrete until a pattern of incentives becomes visible. Veblen prefers analytical distinctions to narrative case studies, so the experience is less anecdotal than diagnostic. His tone remains clinical even when the implications are unsettling. The result is a concentrated read that rewards patience, one that offers conceptual tools for parsing the motives behind business decisions without relying on moral drama or personal testimony.
In Veblen’s account, industry—the coordinated application of knowledge, labor, and equipment to produce goods—does not naturally align with the interests of business, which is organized around profit through prices, ownership, and strategic control. He argues that commercial advantage often depends on limiting throughput, timing shipments, and orchestrating scarcity, strategies that can impede technical efficiency. The price system, in other words, rewards the management of exchange rather than the optimization of production. This friction explains why breakdowns and slowdowns can arise from deliberate policy as much as from mechanical limits, and why technical competence alone cannot secure reliable, broadly beneficial output.
Within this framework, Veblen considers the strategic position of engineers, foremen, and technical managers whose daily work binds complex systems together. Because they oversee processes rather than prices, they possess knowledge that could, in principle, coordinate production on criteria of workmanship, throughput, and serviceability. The wartime mobilization had shown that large-scale planning and logistical synchronization were technically feasible when industrial aims were defined outside normal business routines. Veblen explores, in a deliberately provocative register, what might follow if technical personnel organized around their professional responsibilities, not as a romantic revolt, but as an experiment in directing industry by benchmarks of process and capacity.
Running through the analysis is a study of institutions: how habits of ownership, legal arrangements, and managerial customs stabilize expectations and channel effort. Veblen probes the professional ethos of technicians, asking how training and responsibility might orient them toward standards of workmanship and service when these standards conflict with financial directives. He is equally concerned with legitimacy, since any alternative way of coordinating production must persuade a public accustomed to market signals. The book therefore operates at the intersection of economics, sociology, and political thought, mapping the conditions that enable technical competence to become a form of collective governance.
Contemporary readers will recognize the relevance: debates about algorithmic logistics, critical infrastructure, and climate-sensitive investment reprise Veblen’s question of who sets industrial priorities and by what criteria. When disruptions expose dependencies and underused capacity, his distinction between technological possibility and business prudence clarifies why remedies that seem straightforward on the shop floor can stall in boardrooms or markets. The book matters as a toolbox for thinking about professional responsibility, public coordination, and the politics of expertise. It invites readers to weigh how technical knowledge might serve collective aims without romanticizing either spontaneous markets or centralized command.
Synopsis
Thorstein Veblen’s The Engineers & the Price System, first published in 1921, examines the friction between modern industry’s technical capacities and the business institutions that govern them. Framed as a set of essays, the book asks how a society organized for profit copes with the machine process’s demand for continuous, maximally efficient production. Veblen situates engineers at the center of this tension: they coordinate complex industrial processes yet operate under the directives of owners and financiers. The core question is whether production guided by prices and earnings can reliably align with the scientific standards and cooperative routines that large-scale industry requires.
Veblen distinguishes two governing logics. On one side stands the price system, where decisions rest on pecuniary calculations, margins, and capitalization. On the other stands the machine process, a regime of measurable causation, standardization, and interlocking routines that rewards continuity and throughput. Engineers, trained in factual control of processes, tend to prefer stability and coordination. Business enterprise, by contrast, treats equipment and labor as instruments for securing returns. The book tracks how these divergent habits of thought shape investment, scheduling, and output, often producing compromises that meet financial goals while undercutting technical possibilities.
A central theme is Veblen’s use of the term sabotage to describe output restriction built into business strategy. He does not mean wanton destruction, but the routine curtailment of capacity to defend prices and profits. Under absentee ownership, plant and equipment become assets to be managed for earnings, making idleness and selective bottlenecks rational from a financial standpoint. Veblen links this to recurring instability: inventories swell or shrink not because technology demands it, but because valuations and expectations swing. The outcome is chronic waste, unemployment, and a dampening of the industrial system’s capacity for steady, full utilization.
The wartime economy provides Veblen with a contrasting case. During emergency mobilization, authorities reorganized production around output targets rather than market returns, and engineers played key roles in coordinating flows, standardization, and scheduling. This experience, he argues, revealed how technical administration could raise throughput and cut frictions when profit considerations were temporarily subordinated. With peace, however, control reverted to owners and financiers, restoring incentives that favor earnings management over continuous operation. The reversal highlights Veblen’s claim that organizational purpose—pecuniary gain or industrial efficiency—decisively conditions how plant, labor, and materials are combined.
Veblen assesses the engineers’ collective position. They are strategically placed to understand and run the industrial system, yet they are salaried employees bound by business control. He entertains the prospect that engineers might organize to advocate production for serviceable output, potentially coordinating industry on technical lines. Still, he emphasizes the obstacles: professional loyalties, dependence on management, public skepticism, and the absence of a widely accepted mandate. He offers no detailed institutional blueprint; rather, he probes whether the technical community could become a counterweight to the dictates of investment and market valuation.
The analysis extends to the financial architecture that steers enterprise. Capitalization, credit, and earnings expectations impose a schedule on industry that rewards scarcity over abundance, shaping pricing, mergers, and the deployment of equipment. Veblen traces how these pecuniary pressures intersect with labor relations, consumer demand, and regulatory measures. Policy remedies that leave the price system intact tend, in his view, to finesse symptoms while preserving the incentives that produce underutilization. The result is a pattern of episodic adjustment rather than structural alignment between what technology can deliver and what business rules permit.
By the close, Veblen’s contention is clear: the enduring conflict between technological efficiency and pecuniary control weakens economic stability and wastes productive capacity. The book’s significance lies less in a prescriptive program than in its diagnosis of how institutional aims organize industrial life. It invites readers to consider whether technical coordination could guide production more reliably than market signals during periods of stress. Debates over technocracy, industrial policy, and crisis management have repeatedly returned to these questions, keeping Veblen’s critique relevant without foreclosing alternative arrangements or claiming a definitive resolution.
Historical Context
Thorstein Veblen composed The Engineers & the Price System in the aftermath of World War I, adapting chapters from essays he published in The Dial, and the collection was issued in book form in 1921 by B. W. Huebsch in New York. An American economist and social critic associated with institutional economics, Veblen had taught at Chicago, Stanford, and the University of Missouri before joining the newly founded New School for Social Research in 1919. His earlier works, including The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) and The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904), set the stage for his critique of modern industrial capitalism.
The United States in the 1910s experienced rapid industrial expansion and systematized mass production. Henry Ford’s moving assembly line, introduced in 1913 at Highland Park, became a symbol of standardization and throughput. Engineering professionalization accelerated through bodies such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (founded 1880), the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (1884), and the American Society of Civil Engineers (1852). Universities expanded engineering curricula, while the National Bureau of Standards (1901) promoted uniform measurements. This technical infrastructure elevated engineers to central roles on factory floors and in utilities, yet formal corporate control typically rested with owners, directors, and financial managers.
Corporate consolidation and financial coordination shaped American industry before and after 1900. Antitrust laws—the Sherman Act (1890) and the Clayton Act (1914)—and new regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission (1914) sought to curb monopolistic practices, while the Federal Reserve System (1913) stabilized credit after the Panic of 1907. Investment houses like J. P. Morgan & Co. financed mergers in steel, railroads, and utilities. Veblen’s language of a price system referred to this pecuniary order in which prices, credit, and profit maximization governed decisions. He contrasted it with the industrial, machine-based process that engineers oversaw, often finding the two logics at cross purposes.
World War I supplied a vivid demonstration of centralized industrial coordination. After the United States entered the war in 1917, the War Industries Board, reorganized under Bernard Baruch in 1918, allocated scarce materials, set priorities, and promoted standard designs to speed output. Agencies such as the United States Fuel Administration and the Emergency Fleet Corporation coordinated energy and shipbuilding. The National Research Council, created in 1916, mobilized scientists and engineers for military needs. This wartime apparatus showcased how technical planning could expand production without relying solely on market price signals, a contrast that sharpened Veblen’s distinction between industrial efficiency and business strategy.
The immediate postwar years were turbulent. A wave of strikes in 1919—the Seattle General Strike, the steel strike, and the coal strike—reflected bargaining conflicts over wages and hours as war contracts ended and prices shifted. The First Red Scare (1919–1920), including the Palmer Raids, fueled suspicion toward radicals and labor activism. Employers’ groups promoted the “open shop,” later framed as the “American Plan,” to resist unionization. In public discourse, the word soviet denoted workers’ councils associated with the Russian Revolution, making any proposal for councils or collective industrial governance contentious. Veblen’s vocabulary engages these charged terms while focusing on technical control of production.
The recession of 1920–1921 brought sharp deflation, falling output, and widespread unemployment in the United States, as wartime demand subsided and the Federal Reserve tightened credit. Many industries curtailed production and reduced inventories amid falling prices. In antitrust jurisprudence, the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in United States v. United States Steel Corporation declined to order the company’s dissolution, signaling judicial acceptance of large-scale corporate organization absent clear collusion. Such developments supplied empirical cases for Veblen’s argument that business decisions could restrict throughput for pecuniary ends. His use of the term sabotage referred to deliberate curtailment of capacity, not to physical destruction.
Veblen wrote within an intellectual milieu that challenged orthodox economics. Institutional economists emphasized legal, technological, and organizational forces rather than abstract equilibrium. Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) and time-and-motion studies by the Gilbreths made efficiency a public controversy, as unions and managers fought over shop-floor authority. The New School for Social Research, founded in New York in 1919, offered a forum for heterodox inquiry, and The Dial provided a venue for Veblen’s essays. His earlier The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) had already distinguished industrial production from pecuniary control, a distinction he sharpened in this later work.
The Engineers & the Price System reflects and critiques the early 1920s United States, a society of large corporations, professional engineers, and volatile labor relations emerging from wartime mobilization. Drawing on recent experiences of centralized procurement and standardization, Veblen examines how technical experts might organize production more consistently with industrial efficiency than with profit-driven restraint. His use of terms like price system and soviet of technicians addressed live debates over governance, planning, and democracy amid the First Red Scare. The book’s analysis captures the tensions between machine-age possibilities and financial control that defined its moment and influenced later technocratic discussions.
The Engineers & the Price System
I. On the Nature and Uses of Sabotage
"Sabot[2]age[1]" is a derivative of "sabot," which is French for a wooden shoe[1q]. It means going slow, with a dragging, clumsy movement, such as that manner of footgear may be expected to bring on. So it has come to describe any manoeuvre of slowingdown, inefficiency, bungling, obstruction. In American usage the word is very often taken to mean forcible obstruction, destructive tactics, industrial frightfulness, incendiarism and high explosives, although that is plainly not its first meaning nor its common meaning. Nor is that its ordinary meaning as the word is used among those who have advocated a recourse to sabotage as a means of enforcing an argument about wages or the conditions of work. The ordinary meaning of the word is better defined by an expression which has latterly come into use among the I. W. W[3]., "conscientious withdrawal of efficiency[2q]" - although that phrase does not cover all that is rightly to be included under this technical term.
The sinister meaning which is often attached to the word in American usage, as denoting vio-lence and disorder, appears to be due to the fact that the American usage has been shaped chiefly by persons and newspapers who have aimed to discredit the use of sabotage by organized workmen, and who have therefore laid stress on its less amiable manifestations. This is unfortunate. It lessens the usefulness of the word by making it a means of denunciation rather than of understanding. No doubt, violent obstruction has had its share in the strategy of sabotage as carried on by disaffected workmen, as well as in the similar tactics of rival business concerns. It comes into the case as one method of sabotage, though by no means the most usual or the most effective; but it is so spectacular and shocking a method that it has drawn undue attention to itself.
Yet such deliberate violence is, no doubt, a relatively minor fact in the case, as compared with that deliberate malingering, confusion, and misdirection of work that makes up the bulk of what the expert practitioners would recognize as legitimate sabotage.
The word first came into use among the organized French workmen, the members of certain syndicats[4], to describe their tactics of passive resistance, and it has continued to be associated with the strategy of these French workmen, who are known as syndicalists[5], and with their likeminded runningmates in other countries. But the tactics of these syndicalists, and their use of sabotage, do not differ, except in detail, from the tactics of other workmen elsewhere, or from the similar tactics of friction, obstruction, and delay habitually employed, from time to time, by both employées and employers to enforce an argument about wages and prices. Therefore, in the course of a quartercentury past, the word has quite unavoidably taken on a general meaning in common speech, and has been extended to cover all such peaceable or surreptitious manoeuvres of delay, obstruction, friction, and defeat, whether employed by the workmen to enforce their claims, or by the employers to defeat their employées, or by competitive business concerns to get the better of their business rivals or to secure their own advantage.
Such manoeuvres of restriction, delay, and hindrance have a large share in the ordinary conduct of business; but it is only lately that this ordinary line of business strategy has come to be recognized as being substantially of the same nature as the ordinary tactics of the syndicalists. So that it has not been usual until the last few years to speak of manoeuvres of this kind as sabotage when they are employed by employers and their business concerns. But all this strategy of delay, restriction, hindrance, and defeat is manifestly of the same character, and should conveniently be called by the same name, whether it is carried on by business men or by workmen; so that it is no longer unusual now to find workmen speaking of "capitalistic sabotage" as freely as the employers and the newspapers speak of syndicalist sabotage. As the word is now used, and as it is properly used, it describes a certain system of industrial strategy or management, whether it is employed by one or another. What it describes is a resort to peaceable or surreptitious restriction, delay, withdrawal, or obstruction.
Sabotage commonly works within the law, although it may often be within the letter rather than the spirit of the law. It is used to secure some special advantage or preference, usually of a businesslike sort. It commonly has to do with something in the nature of a vested right, which one or another of the parties in the case aims to secure or defend, or to defeat or diminish; some preferential right or special advantage in respect of income or privilege, something in the way of a vested interest. Workmen have resorted to such measures to secure improved conditions of work, or increased wages, or shorter hours, or to maintain their habitual standards, to all of which they have claimed to have some sort of a vested right. Any strike[7] is of the nature of sabotage, of course. Indeed, a strike is a typical species of sabotage[6q]. That strikes have not been spoken of as sabotage is due to the accidental fact that strikes were in use before this word came into use. So also, of course, a lockout[6] is another typical species of sabotage. That the lockout is employed by the employers against the employées does not change the fact that it is a means of defending a vested right by delay, withdrawal, defeat, and obstruction of the work to be done. Lockouts have not usually been spoken of as sabotage, for the same reason that holds true in the case of strikes. All the while it has been recognized that strikes and lockouts are of identically the same character.
All this does not imply that there is anything discreditable or immoral about this habitual use of strikes and lockouts. They are part of the ordinary conduct of industry under the existing system, and necessarily so. So long as the system remains unchanged these measures are a necessary and legitimate part of it. By virtue of his ownership the owneremployer has a vested right to do as he will with his own property, to deal or not to deal with any person that offers, to withhold or withdraw any part or all of his industrial equipment and natural resources from active use for the time being, to run on half time or to shut down his plant and to lock out all those persons for whom he has no present use on his own premises. There is no question that the lockout is altogether a legitimate manoeuvre. It may even be meritorious, and it is frequently considered to be meritorious when its use helps to maintain sound conditions in business - that is to say profitable conditions - as frequently happens. Such is the view of the substantial citizens. So also is the strike legitimate, so long as it keeps within the law; and it may at times even be meritorious, at least in the eyes of the strikers. It is to be admitted quite broadly that both of these typical species of sabotage are altogether fair and honest in principle, although it does not therefore follow that every strike or every lockout is necessarily fair and honest in its workingout. That is in some degree a question of special circumstances.
Sabotage, accordingly, is not to be condemned out of hand, simply as such. There are many measures of policy and management both in private business and in public administration which are unmistakably of the nature of sabotage and which are not only considered to be excusable, but are deliberately sanctioned by statute and common law and by the public conscience. Many such measures are quite of the essence of the case under the established system of law and order, price and business, and are faithfully believed to be indispensable to the common good. It should not be difficult to show that the common welfare in any community which is organized on the price system cannot be maintained without a salutary use of sabotage - that it to say, such habitual recourse to delay and obstruction of industry and such restriction of output as will maintain prices at a reasonably profitable level and so guard against business depression.
Indeed, it is precisely considerations of this nature that are now engaging the best attention of officials and business men in their endeavors to tide over a threatening depression in American business and a consequent season of hardship for all those persons whose main dependence is free income from investments.
Without some salutary restraint in the way of sabotage on the productive use of the available industrial plant and workmen, it is altogether unlikely that prices could be maintained at a reasonably profitable figure for any appreciable time. A businesslike control of the rate and volume of output is indispensable[20q] for keeping up a profitable market, and a profitable market is the first and unremitting condition of prosperity in any community whose industry is owned and managed by business men. And the ways and means of this necessary control of the output of industry are always and necessarily something in the nature of sabotage - something in the way of retardation, restriction, withdrawal, unemployment of plant and workmen - whereby production is kept short of productive capacity.
The mechanical industry of the new order is inordinately productive. So the rate and volume of output have to be regulated with a view to what the traffic will bear - that is to say, what will yield the largest net return in terms of price to the business men who manage the country's industrial system. Otherwise there will be "overproduction," business depression, and consequent hard times all around. Overproduction means production in excess of what the market will carry off at a sufficiently profitable price. So it appears that the continued prosperity of the country from day to day hangs on a "conscientious withdrawal of efficiency" by the business men who control the country's industrial output. They control it all for their own use, of course, and their own use means always a profitable price.
