The objective of this paper is to analyze the theory regarding the formation of Werner Sombart’s “capitalistic spirit” from a perspective intrinsic to his economic thought. Prior research has confirmed that Sombart’s argument was based on a problem setting that was different from Max Weber’s. However, despite the recent progress in research on Sombart’s economic thought, no study has systematically examined his proof structure by analyzing his various writings in a unified manner. In this paper, the question I aim to resolve is twofold. First, for Sombart, what kind of methodology was believed to provide proof of the formation of the capitalistic spirit? Second, what historical phenomenon did Sombart envision as the emergence of the capitalistic spirit? My research helps me arrive at the following answers. First, Sombart believed that by using a methodology that relied on his own concept of “understanding,” he could describe the “spirit” unique to the capitalistic era. The characteristics of his methodology and its theoretical limitations are explored mainly by reconstructing the arguments of The Three National Economies (1930). Second, Sombart assumed that the simultaneous emergence in Europe of both the “affirmation of profit” and “economic rationalism” formed the capitalist spirit. The coherence of Sombart’s argument is clarified through a textual analysis of his main work Modern Capitalism, with particular attention paid to the revisions undertaken between the first (1902) and second editions (1916–1927). Through a comprehensive analysis of Sombart’s works, I thus demonstrate that his theory deserves consideration in its own right as an original development of the Geistesgeschichte tradition since Wilhelm Dilthey.

This study explores the distinctive characteristics of 18th-century French economics by examining their relationships with the surrounding intellectual context. In the latter half of the 17th century, under the influence of Augustinian thought, a new perspective emerged that framed human motivation and the foundational principles of society through the lens of “utility.” Building on this intellectual shift, Pierre de Boisguilbert took a groundbreaking step toward a liberal economic framework based on the principle of laissez-faire, while also highlighting an economic world driven by utility, desire, and consumption. Following the “crisis of spirit” brought on by secularization, the onset of the Enlightenment era ushered in a new intellectual paradigm. The pessimistic view of human nature rooted in Augustinianism was rejected in favor of Enlightenment economics, which sought to promote secular happiness through profit and pleasure. A pivotal moment in this transformation was the luxury debate, which fundamentally questioned the human condition in the context of civilization and significantly shaped the economic discourse of Enlightenment thinkers. This study first elucidates Boisguilbert’s pioneering contributions before analyzing the development of Enlightenment economics from the perspective of the luxury debate. By analyzing theories of luxury and consumption proposed by thinkers such as Melon, Forbonnais, Quesnay, Butel-Dumont, and Graslin, this study traces the unique trajectory of French economic thought during this period.

Quesnay’s Problème Économique explains the effects of price increases using his Tableau of distribution. We analyze these effects by converting the numbers presented in the Tableau and the text of Problème Économique into several Input-Output tables. The questionnaire addressed these effects through three distinct steps. First, Quesnay outlines the changes in the recovery (reprise) of annual advances by the productive class and the corresponding changes in landowners’ revenues, which rise from 400 million livres to 570 million livres. Second, he considers the equalization of prices in transactions, resulting in a further increase of landowners’ revenue to 805 million livres, representing a profit of 235 million livres generated through price equalization. Lastly, the demand-side factors, including foreign trade, are examined. Quesnay elaborates on expenditures made by the productive and sterile classes, expenses derived from indirect taxes, and the export and import of domestic and foreign products. In the first and second steps, Quesnay’s primarily emphasizes the impact on landowners’ revenue. However, the benefits for productive and sterile classes are considered during the third step. By transforming Quesnay’s numerical examples from Problème Économique into Input-Output tables, we could verify the consistency of transactions described by Quesnay and clearly illustrate the three-step explanation process. While Quesnay’s reasoning proved logical, some numerical inconsistencies were observed in his examples.