Emil Lederer and Joseph Schumpeter on Economic Growth,Technology and Business Cycles

This paper compares Joseph Schumpeter and Emil Lederer with respect to their visions concerning the notions of economic growth, technology and business cycles. Their theoretical investigations in a number of thematic areas seem to converge to similar views. More precisely, both Schumpeter and Lederer regard the capitalist economy as a dynamic system where the introduction of innovations is its distinctive characteristic. In such a system, static analysis based on the concept of equilibrium is useful as an expository device to describe the adjustment mechanisms of the economic system. They also paid attention to the emergence of large oligopolistic firms and considered this development as being interwoven with technological progress. Both economists used similar arguments to emphasize the link between economic development and technological change. In their analyses, Schumpeter and Lederer referred to psychological factors motivating the entrepreneur, in order to explain the forces that set in motion the process of innovation and thus economic development. The concept of technological unemployment is also described in a similar manner by both of them. Regarding the issue of business cycles, Schumpeter and Lederer considered them to be a result of endogenous processes within a capitalist economy. Lederer in his late works, argued in a way analogous to Schumpeter, that economic fluctuations are caused from the disruptions created by innovations, which are introduced discontinuously into the economic system. Conclusively, Schumpeter and Lederer delivered theses which are similar in scope and conclusions probably because they were developed in the same social, political, theoretical and ideological environment and were also well acquainted with each other’s ideas.     

Nonlinear dynamism of innovation and business cycles

The aim of this paper is to describe the nonlinear dynamism of innovation and to clarify the role of innovation for economic development in terms of Kondratiev business cycles, especially the causal relation of the bubble economy and depressions with innovations. Any paradigm of technological innovation develops within a definite time span reaching maturity. This nonlinear nature clarifies many characteristic features of innovation. Schumpeters innovation theory on business cycles is examined through this dynamism. Trunk innovation is defined as that which plays a decisive role in building infrastructures and inducing subsequent innovations. Every innovation has its own technological development period just before the innovation diffusion. The emergence of new markets can be estimated by chasing the ongoing technologies.JEL Classification: E32, L16, O11, O14, O30Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the International J.A. Schumpeter Society, Gainesville, Florida, USA.Previous affiliation was Ryutsu Kagaku University, Faculty of Information Science, Kobe, Japan.     

Terms of trade movements and the global economic crisis

Dramatic changes in the relative prices of goods in international trade have accompanied, and indeed preceded, the recent global crisis. The causes and effects of the relative price changes are analysed by applying the analysis of business cycles developed by Joseph Schumpeter. Schumpeter’s analysis emphasises innovation and structural change (particularly creative destruction) which impart uneven development on the economy and can foster financial crises. This puts the current crisis in the context of long-wave development of the capitalist system and leads to predictions about the likely path of price and output changes over the next few decades.     

The finance/innovation nexus in Schumpeterian analysis: theory and application to the case of U.S. trustified capitalism

Joseph Schumpeter built his theory of economic development around the interaction between the entrepreneur and the banker, representations of the underlying finance/innovation nexus. The neo-Schumpeterian revival has marginalized this theoretical element, in favor of an interpretation focused primarily on technological aspects of innovation. Recent attempts by innovation scholars to re-integrate the missing financial elements have been hindered by this theoretical gap. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the recovery of the finance/innovation nexus in the context of Schumpeter’s theory by proposing an original institutional interpretation of the relationship between finance and the entrepreneurial function. The new approach identifies the economic role of innovation as dependent on the contextual form taken by the related funding process. Application of these concepts to the U.S. trustified capitalism experience allows for an alternative interpretation linking corporate internalization of innovation and financial repression. A Schumpeterian trilemma involving monetary capitalism, financial autonomy of the corporate sector and financial stability is revealed. The proposed framework provides a flexible theoretical background for the development of our understanding of the current capitalist regime, open to further integration with other schools of economic thought.     

Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen on technological determinism,individualism and institutions

This article investigates Joseph Schumpeter's affinities with Thorstein Veblen with respect to technological change and determinism, the future of capitalism, individualism and institutions. From a methodological point of view, a common point in their analysis is their anti-teleological view regarding economics as a discipline. Also, in the Schumpeterian system, technology is the cornerstone of economic evolution and appears as the making of new combinations. In the Veblenian theoretical framework, the bearer of change is to be found, inter alia, in technology, just like in Schumpeter's works, although not without differences. They also share the opinion that technology revolutionises capitalism and has serious implications for its future as a system. Furthermore, regarding individualism, in his work Schumpeter stresses the importance of the social milieu on individual action, a fact which bears strong resemblance to the Veblenian notion of evolution as ‘depersonalized evolution’. In this sense, Schumpeter is very close to Veblen, although Schumpeter's approach could be classified in what is called institutionalist individualism, whereas Veblen could be classified as holist. Undoubtedly, the role of institutions is of great importance in both Schumpeter and Veblen. Ιnstitutions in the Schumpeterian schema play a central role closely related to the future of capitalism. Institutional and non-institutional factors enter into complex forms of interaction just like in Veblen's approach. There, institutions are part of the social milieu and their underlying framework, much wider than mere economic and social. Of course, the theoretical analyses of Schumpeter and Veblen are not devoid of differences springing mainly from their methodological approach such as the role of the individual in the capitalist process which is probably the most significant difference regarding the importance attributed to it in Schumpeter's early works. Also, the way technical change appears constitutes another difference. However, his views are quite close to Veblen's. After all, Schumpeter began to write in a social, political, theoretical and ideological environment at a time when evolutionary ideas dominated social thought.     

Emil Lederer’s Theory of Economic Fluctuations and the Role of Financial Institutions

Abstract

Emil Lederer was characterized as the “leading academic socialist of Germany in the 1920’s” by Joseph Schumpeter and was a highly respected economist of his time. However, most aspects of his work remain totally unexplored. This paper focuses on Emil Lederer’s theory of economic fluctuations defending the thesis that certain aspects of Lederer’s conceptualization of economic fluctuations underwent considerable modifications when his 1925 article Konjunktur und Krisen is compared with his 1938 book Technical Progress and Unemployment, a shift unacknowledged so far in the literature. In his first attempt to tackle the issue, in Konjunktur und Krisen (1925), Lederer had constructed an explanation consistent with the so-called “disproportionality theory” introduced by Tugan-Baranowsky (codified as “early Lederer”). However, Lederer’s conception of the business cycle during the 1930s and especially in his major work Technical Progress and Unemployment underwent considerable modifications. Lederer’s (1938 Lederer, E. 1938. Technical Progress and Unemployment, Geneva: King and Son.  [Google Scholar]) analysis is, apparently, very ‘Schumpeterian’ (codified as “late Lederer”). In this version of his theory, the cycle is explained by supply-side factors, and more specifically by technical change. Additionally, Lederer’s view on the role of financial institutions (credit and banks) with regards to business cycles is analysed. Lederer avoided attributing a causative role to monetary factors. The interrelation between ‘real’ factors and financial institutions constitutes an essential element in his analysis of the business cycle.     

长波理论、创新与中国经济周期分析

在熊彼特看来,创新是经济繁荣的唯一原因。本文通过对英国技术创新和经济增长历史数据的分析,发现技术创新与经济增长之间有相互决定、相互影响的关系。按照这一发现,通过研究中国目前的经济增长和技术创新情况,本文认为,中国目前正处在创新高涨、潜在增长率下滑的阶段,虽然经济增速在短期内会放缓,但技术创新在未来5～10年内对经济会有拉升作用。除了加大研发投入,中国提高潜在增长率的关键是加快经济体制改革,为创新营造良好的环境,增强市场配置资源的作用。     

The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry—was Schumpeter wrong?

This paper analyzes the evolution and role of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry, particularly for the 1945–1980 period, based on data on the 100 economically most important innovations during this period. Privately owned large corporations (Schumpeter Mark II) dominated in launching innovations in almost all industrial sectors and in all subperiods but decreasingly so. 20% of the innovations were launched by new firms (Schumpeter Mark I) but most of these new firms were spun-off and/or acquired by large corporations. State entrepreneurship was marginal. Universities played an important role, although sector-specific. New firms and existing firms had similar growth rates and almost identical and short gestation times to international markets for their innovations. 80% of the corporate innovations were product renewals rather than product diversifications or process innovations. No evidence of an evolution from autonomous over corporate to state entrepreneurship, as hypothesized by Schumpeter, was found. Evolution of a dynamic coexistence of. these forms of entrepreneurship is hypothesized in this paper. The paper finally presents a model, synthesizing Schumpeter Mark I and II, for analyzing technological change and entrepreneurship.     

Perspectives on Michael A. Bernstein's A Perilous Progress: Economists and Public Purpose in Twentieth-Century America *

The article compares Joseph Schumpeter's well-known perspectives of long term economic development with those put forward in the 1920's by the German economist Werner Sombart who followed an approach of ‘theoretical historicism’. There was general agreement between Schumpeter and Sombart that capitalism as an economic system was on the decline. Whereas according to Sombart this was attributable to a tendancy towards stagnation; in Schumpeter's view capitalism was doomed due to its success, not for its failure. The strongest parallels are to be found with respect to forces driving the transformation process, at the end of which Schumpeter expected a socialist system whereas Sombart envisioned some kind of mixed economy. The article also discusses the relevance of differences of approaches and of value judgments for the results of both authors' investigations.     

营商环境、企业家精神与技术创新关系研究

优化营商环境、激发市场主体活力是我国新时期推动经济高质量发展的重大举措。选取2009-2018年30个省市级面板数据,构建中介效应模型,实证分析营商环境质量对企业家精神的激励效应及技术创新的促进作用。研究发现：①营商环境优化对中国技术创新具有显著正效应,但其影响更多表现为资金供给而非制度供给;②企业家精神是营商环境与技术创新的中介变量,营商环境要素、企业家创新精神和创业精神激励结构对技术创新的影响存在异质性;③营商环境显性激励作用明显,但内生激励不足。研究结论可为持续优化营商环境、激发企业家精神、促进技术创新提供政策启示。     

The concept of maturity and the transformation of economic systems

In economics, ‘maturity’ essentially means that an economic system (or part of a system) is ripe to be transformed into something else or heading towards decline. In Josef Steindl's economic thinking the concept of maturity, by which he means a stage of development where the economy becomes unable to fully realize its output potential, occupies a central place. Whereas for Steindl the main causes of such maturity are endogenous, other economists such as Schumpeter, Sombart, Hilferding, Keynes, and Hansen consider stagnation to be caused primarily by exogenous factors. Various concepts and causes of maturity are compared. Contrary to expectations based on these concepts, economic development after the Great Depression has not been characterized by stagnation or transition to planned economy. Instead, the dynamics of innovation were strong enough to prevent the economy from becoming ‘mature’. It appears that the actual course of events can be better explained within Steindl's concept of maturity.     

The product innovation process and GDP dynamics

In this paper, we explain GDP dynamics through an analysis of the forces that modify the structure of the economy. These forces are represented by the entry of new firms and product innovations. Our model is inspired by Bak’s sand pile model, and the entry of a new firm or innovation is comparable to dropping a grain of sand in Bak’s model. The resulting model involves the insights of both Keynes and Schumpeter. It could be defined as Keynesian because the aggregate output is demand driven. That said, the model can mainly be labeled as Schumpeterian for several reasons: (i) innovations have a key role, (ii) credit is involved in supporting the innovation process, (iii) innovations partially destroy old industries, and finally (iv) without innovations, the system gradually approaches its stationary state. In this simple model, the change in the number of sectors (products) of the economy is the decisive factor with the following results: (1) the aggregate production has an increasing trend; (2) fluctuations are asymmetric; (3) recessions have a “creative destruction” explanation; (4) “classical” cycles are gradually replaced by “growth” cycles.     

创业孵化推动创新引领经济发展的机理分析与实证检验

“十四五”规划提出坚持创新在现代化建设中的核心地位。创业孵化是推动创新引领经济发展的重要环节,是新一轮产业变革的重要载体。孵化器资源整合通过帕累托改进提高资源配置效率,孵化投资通过收入效应提高规模效率,技术服务通过替代效应提高技术效率,进而推动创新引领经济发展。基于2010-2019年中国内地省际面板数据,使用Bootstrap方法、逐步回归法及sobel模型检验创业孵化影响资源配置效率、规模效率与技术效率的中介效应。结果发现：孵化器数量、人员投入、风险投资及技术服务对资源配置效率、规模效率与技术效率具有显著中介效应,创业孵化通过创新产业化路径推动创新引领经济发展。据此,提出如下对策建议：①以平台化、网络化路径扩大孵化器体量,提高资源配置效率;②优化创业孵化资金“入、转、退”制度,提升规模效率;③建设“孵化器4.0”模式众创空间,提升技术效率。     

Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation

This paper proposes that the specific pattern of innovative activities in an industry can be explained as the outcome of different technological (learning) regimes . A technological regime is defined by the particular combination of technological opportunities, appropriability of innovations, cumulativeness of technical advances and properties of the knowledge base. Building upon the distinction between Schumpeter Mark I and Schumpeter Mark II industries, this paper provides empirical estimates of the relationships between indicators of the Schumpeterian patterns of innovation (concentration of innovative activities, stability in the hierarchy of innovators and importance of new innovators) and indicators of the variables defining technological regimes.     

Discoveries, innovations, and business cycles

There is considerable evidence that the density of basic innovations is peaked at definite periods with intervals of about 40–60 years. This has been used as support for the behavior of economic cycles as postulated by Kontradieff and amplified by Schumpeter. Recently some economists have used this model to forecast economic recovery in the middle or late 1980s.This paper points out that the shape of the clusters of innovation or inventions are different and sharper than those of economic depression or economic recovery. The transfer of knowledge from basic inventions to industrial innovations shortens as one moves from the 18th to the 20th century, and some probable explanations for this are offered. The importance of discoveries and limited discoveries to the process of invention and innovation is discussed. Also shown is that discoveries reveal cluster phenomena which are functionally related to the clusters of invention and innovation.     

技术进步研究评析

作为人类改造自然的一切知识的总和,技术进步象一条涓涓溪流始终贯穿于整个经济增长与发展史,技术的进步是推动经济增长与发展的基础,经济学家们就技术进步对一国经济发展的影响进行研究是在对经济增长影响因素的理论探索中逐步展开的,许多经济学流派都曾关注过技术进步并试图将技术进步溶入其理论框架,从不同角度不同程度地用技术进步来解释经济增长的源泉和增长过程。本文从亚当.斯密体现在积累及劳动分工上的技术进步因素开始,循经济增长理论的发展时序,分别进一步评析了熊彼特的技术创新理论、以索洛经济增长模型为代表的新古典增长模型以及色彩斑斓的内生经济增长理论,各大理论流派均认同技术进步一定会推动经济增长和发展,但人类显然还没有找到一把普适的经济发展的"魔杖",关于技术进步与经济增长的理论研究在不断延续展开着。     

A Schumpeterian model of endogenous innovation and growth

A disequilibrium model of endogenous innovation and growth is presented. The behaviour of the agents is supposed to be governed by routines, not by maximization. The entrepreneurs are assumed to invest a fraction of their operating profits in real capital accumulation, and another fraction in R&D. The latter leads to an increase in labour productivity via a R&D production function. In this Schumpeterian model, not only the R&D processes of innovations are considered, but the diffusion processes as well. As in Schumpeter's theory of economic development the economic impact of technical change is considered a disequilibrium phenomenon. Thus, in a capitalist economy characterized by ongoing diffusion processes of innovations, time averages are more important than steady state values even in a long run perspective.     

Bursting the dot.com "Bubble': A Case Study in Investor Behaviour

The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter considered innovation to be the driving force of economic growth and argued that innovations were also the main cause of cyclical fluctuations in the economy, an idea now well established in the economic literature. In this paper, the authors attempt to gain insights into the behaviour exhibited by investors before and after the market correction of the newly established Internet sector--a technology with revolutionary potential--in the Spring of 2000 by structuring their analysis around the psychological themes of heuristic-driven bias, frame dependence, and inefficient prices. Linear regression models are constructed using data collected on publicly traded Internet companies, market performance both before and after the collapse of the Internet sector stock prices in an attempt to assess whether or not market returns were correlated with certain specific measures of corporate internet performance. Finally, the authors draw inferences relating to the psychology of investor behaviour during this period based upon their empirical analysis, and conclude by summarizing the managerial implications of their findings.     

1992～2002年间中国共产党经济工作的特点与经验

1992～2002年,是中国共产党的经济工作史上一个具有特殊意义的时期.在实践上,中国共产党领导中国人民初步建立了社会主义市场经济体制,完成了现代化建设第二步战略目标;在理论上,进行了一系列重大理论创新,形成了中国特色社会主义经济理论体系;在战略上,构建了一系列面向新世纪的经济工作战略.这一时期中国共产党的经济工作无论在指导思想上还是在方法上都形成了鲜明的特点,凝聚成丰富的经验.