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.     

Theory of Competition Policy: A Confrontation of Economic,Political and Legal Principles

Thorstein Veblen was a founding father of original, or old, institutional economics. The social and evolutionary usage of things and thoughts are at the center of Veblen's approach. In his studies, he dealt with psychological, social, anthropological and economic issues. The psychological content of Veblen's writing takes instinctive and habitual issues into consideration. The proposal of this paper is to revisit the psychology of Veblen's conspicuous consumer. In such a task, this paper discusses the role of observation and cognition in habit building, and their influence on the conspicuous consumer. It also introduces a psychological explanation of the importance of the leisure class to the conspicuous consumer. In order to build the analysis, this paper takes into account elements of Albert Bandura's vicarious learning. These elements are introduced to highlight vicarious observation as a key component of Veblen's conspicuous consumer.     

Evolutionary Aspects of Corporate Concentration and Its Implications for Economic Theory and Policy

Thorstein Veblen's class analysis implicitly was a critique of the class analysis of some Marxists, who reduced the interdependence of economic base and ideological superstructure to a causal link from the former to the latter. Veblen's emphasis on the directive to take culture into account occurs later in Antonio Gramsci's theoretical innovations: namely, class struggle for cultural hegemony and the importance of the organic intellectual as ferment for class emergence. Gramsci was experiencing the mass movement of fascism, and the (now) classic analysis of social classes became an urgently needed extension to explain class evolution. Today, capitalism is in deep crisis once again. This paper argues that the drivers of the next revolutionary upheaval will, once more, be the social classes — particularly, the newly emerging ones. We graft ideas of Veblen onto concepts suggested by Gramsci to enhance the theoretical toolbox necessary to understand contemporary global class dynamics.     

The Dichotomized State

As the radical institutionalist literature attests, in spite of methodological differences Marx and Veblen draw strikingly similar conclusions regarding production, conflict, and alienation in modern life. Here we attempt to contribute to this viewpoint by establishing that similarity in conclusion stems from similarity in approach. After reviewing the existing literature on a Marx-Veblen methodological reconciliation, we briefly review Marx's method, making the mediated starting point the focus of discussion. From this vantage point, we then examine Veblen's own approach to analysis in The Theory of Business Enterprise and the conclusions that emerge as they resemble those of Marx. We maintain that in taking a kindred approach Veblen is able to arrive at an understanding of capitalism in accordance with, and complementary to, Marx's rendering of the inverted nature of economic life in modernity.     

The Evolution and Devolution of Bank Regulation in the United States

Development economics is understood as a postwar phenomenon without antecedents. Yet, Veblen's contribution to development economics was once widely disseminated and acknowledged. Veblen's evolutionary economics centered on historically relative and limited truths applicable to specific cultures. Veblen's growth theory is a theory of economic development: quantitative accumulation is significant because it engenders qualitative change. Veblen's analysis of the harnessing of the economic potential centers on the ability of a society to successfully introduce scientific and technological advances, giving rise to increasing returns as the surplus is invested in industrial activities. Veblen presented oblique comments and startling insights in a non-empirical manner.     

Veblen's critique of Marx's philosophical preconceptions of political economy

This paper explores some of the theoretical linkages between Thorstein Veblen and Karl Marx. Special reference is placed Veblen's criticisms of Marx and the Marxist tradition for adhering to the preconceptions of (a) the natural right of labour to the full product, and (b) the teleology of conscious agents directing action towards change. Veblen was incorrect to believe that Marx adhered to the natural right of labour thesis, but he was correct to assert that Marx utilized undesirable teleologies. Overall, however, Veblen was attempting to reformulate and modernise the materialistic conception of history through an evolutionary analysis of institutions. The two thinkers complement each other in important ways, although Veblen's analysis is more evolutionary, collectivist and holistic.     

Thorstein Veblen's Darwinian framework and gene-culture coevolution theory

At the turn of the previous century, Thorstein Veblen used Darwinian evolutionary principles to explain the macro-historical evolution of human societies, as well as the institutional structure of the modern pecuniary culture. Even if Veblen had a strong intuitive grasp of the evolutionary forces operating in society, he was not always clear and explicit in developing his ideas towards a full-fledged, consistent evolutionary social theory. This paper argues that a relatively recent theoretical approach, gene-culture coevolution theory, has the conceptual apparatus to remedy this problem and thus make Veblen's ideas an important part of contemporary evolutionary thinking in social theory.     

Elements of Publicness in Urban Transit

This paper examines the claim that Veblen's theory of cultural evolution has generalized Darwinian principles to socioeconomic phenomena. Our argument takes place in the debate around "generalized Darwinism" in evolutionary and institutional economics. We claim that Veblen frequently relied on the concept of selection and considered institutions both as units and as factors of selection. We also argue that some of Veblen's insights can be clarified by expressing them in evolutionary-game theoretic terms. Thus, we suggest a close connection between the ontological framework of generalized Darwinism and the technical study of evolutionary phenomena through evolutionary game theory.     

Veblen’s Imperial Germany and the Industrialization of Latin America

Veblen’s Imperial Germany is a theory of development and industrialization, and the role the business enterprise played in these processes. Through a reassessment of Veblen’s Imperial Germany, this paper explores the main aspects that Veblen considered about the industrialization of England and Germany, deriving theoretical implications for the preconditions of a successful industrialization and development, based on an evolutionary Institutional perspective. Veblen’s analysis is then used to analyze the current state of the industrialization of Latin America, evaluating the last two decades since the 1990s, and comparing the orthodox approach, the neostructural view and the Veblenian perspective, arguing for the validity of a policy framework not reduced only to targeted protectionism but emphasizing the necessity of generating the institutional preconditions suggested by Veblen in his seminal work.     

The Institutionalist Roots of Macroprudential Ideas: Veblen and Galbraith on Regulation,Policy Success and Overconfidence

One consequence of the global financial crisis has been to prompt debate over macroprudential regulation – meant to limit private risk-taking that threatens systemic stability. In this paper, we stress the roots of macroprudential ideas in the Institutionalist economics of Veblen and Galbraith in a way that highlights both unrecognised policy possibilities and underappreciated impediments to policy effectiveness, arguing in particular that regulatory success can breed overconfidence. First, we argue that while Veblen's views anticipated macroprudential arguments, they also obscured tensions between the technocratic acumen of policy ‘engineers’ and popular legitimacy. Second, we argue that while Galbraith's views similarly shaped the postwar Keynesian policy mix, they also echoed Veblen in underrating the potential for populist resentment of an intellectual ‘technostructure’. We conclude that while this analysis can be seen as highlighting an overlooked century of macroprudential debate, it also demonstrates the potential for technocratic overconfidence – which can eventually undermine policy legitimacy and effectiveness.     

Overhead Capital: A Study in Development Economics

Veblen's and Commons's contributions are outlined and related to the approaches to economics and political actions over the years of the author. Commons's philosophy and pragmatic contribution to economic and political institutions in order to help create decent living conditions for wage-earners within capitalism are reflected in the author's rethink in the late 1970s of what was possible for a social democratic government in Australia to achieve. The implication of John Kenneth Galbraith's example and writings on the war in Vietnam are linked to the author's actions in Australia during Australia's involvement in the war. The relevance of Veblen's damning critique of J.B. Clark's views on capital theory for the arguments of the Cambridge - Cambridge controversies in capital theory of the 1950s-1970s, first noted by Joan Robinson, are set out. Veblen's biting analyses of the nature of capitalism in his major writings are argued to be even more relevant now for the modern world of haves, have nots and have lots.     

Thorstein Veblen as Evolutionary Feminist Economist of the Progressive Era

Abstract

Just prior to the turn of the twentieth century, Thorstein Veblen advanced an evolutionary approach to feminist economics. A host of scholars considered in this inquiry are noted to have endorsed and also furthered his tradition. What distinguishes Veblen’s evolutionary approach to feminist economics is that he emphasizes that the roots of private property can be related to women being taken captive through warfare during the Age of Savagery. Instincts affecting behavior are viewed as relative constants, but which take on an evolutionary character when considered against what Veblen defines as four stages of social and economic development.     

Corporate Giantism,Degradation of the Plane of Competition,and Countervailance

Thorstein Veblen argued, in The Higher Learning in America, that universities were at risk of being captured by the same pecuniary aims as business enterprise. His argument remains relevant today, given that many observers claim that higher education is headed for fundamental transformation. These changes are occurring in response to a number of challenges facing higher education in the United States — financial, demographic, and cultural, aiming both to reform what is seen by many as a system resistant to change and accountability, and to take advantage of new technologies seen as improving accessibility and convenience for its consumers, the students. I briefly review Veblen’s argument by using its general contours as a lens for the major disruptions occurring in higher education today, and specifically the rise of for-profit universities, the expansion of online learning and massive open-online courses (MOOCs), and the growing movement to unbundle the educational experience.     

Social Costs and the Automobile Industry: A Challenge to National Planning

Neoinstitutional thought is based on an integration of Thorstein Veblen's evolutionary theory of institutional change and John Dewey's theory of instrumental valuation. It offers a coherent methodology that guides both economic analysis and policy formation. Neoinstitutionalist methodology differs from mainstream economic methodology in its rejection of the normative-positive dualism. It denies that "objectivity" requires that science be wertfrie, arguing instead that normative propositions based on instrumental valuation are the foundation of scientific objectivity. The analytical focus of neoinstitutional economics is the process of institutional change which it treats as a change in the value structure of the institution.     

Comments on “The Corporate State,Economic Performance,and Social Policy”

This paper provides an introduction to the Minsky-Veblen Cycles as a specific example of pluralist economic thinking in the context of the recent global economic crisis. It illustrates how pluralism can be applied to economic research. Specifically, the Minsky-Veblen Cycles combine three elements of institutional and post-Keynesian thought to explain key features of the current crisis. These elements are (1) John Maynard Keynes's postulate of effective demand, (2) Hyman Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, and (3) Thorstein Veblen's concept of conspicuous consumption. In this paper, we have a two-fold approach to them: First, we systematize the connection between the Minsky-Veblen Cycles as a theoretical argument and the epistemological rationale of a pluralist approach to economics. Second, we contrast the implications of our approach for incorporating behavioral assumptions in macroeconomic arguments to mainstream claims for a "microfoundation" of macroeconomic theory.     

The Place of Biotechnology in Modern Civilization: A Veblenian Analysis of Public Misgiving Toward Embryology in the United States

Embryonic stem cell research and cloning are among the most controversial and ethically-loaded scientific advances of the past few decades. This paper argues that, in the context of recent theoretical developments in anthropology and cognitive psychology, Thorstein Veblen's work on the place of science in modern societies can provide a theoretical framework to study public misgiving toward embryology in the United States. It is argued that combining insights regarding human cognitive predisposition toward ritualization offered by Veblen with evolutionary theory on hazard-precaution systems and religious cognition may shed some light on the "peculiarity" of the initial public responses to embryology. Ultimately, this paper contends that understanding that initial reactions to embryology may follow a cognitive path of least resistance signifies that assessing the legitimacy of embryology will necessitate a deliberate effort toward instrumental thinking that may go against human cognitive predispositions.     

The Idea of Culture in the Social Sciences

An Institutionalist critique that draws from selected contributions of Veblen and Myrdal initiates a convergence debate. Challenged is a Neoclassical interpretation of economic processes expected to lead toward a catching up with respect to per capita output of Germany's poorer eastern region with the richer western region. Economic method is considered, and the Institutionalist School of Thought rooted in contributions of Veblen as well as Myrdal is touted for offering higher levels of explanatory power than the Neoclassical School. We challenge the usefulness of laws in Economic Science, and especially their applicability to the empirical economy. Instead of automatic forces driving a meliorative trend, we seek to establish that human agency and policy play determining roles in affecting economic and societal outcomes in Germany's eastern region.     

The Last Gasp of Neoliberalism

The ideas of both Thorstein Veblen and Karl Polanyi shed light on understanding the last gasp of neoliberalism. The last gasp refers to Donald Trump’s abandonment of free trade, long considered a cornerstone of the neoliberal agenda, and his overt attacks on democratic institutions. In Trump, neoliberalism’s attempt to overcome the gridlock of liberal democracy has revealed its fascist leanings. Both Polanyi and Veblen warned about the trend towards fascism. Trump was elected, in part, by filling the void left by the factioning of neoliberalism, in part by the injustice felt by people in rural areas, those with stagnant incomes, white males, and others. Trump has transcended the neoliberal agenda, approaching market relations from the point-of-view of the fight. The emergence of a predatory culture, in both the domestic and international realms, resembles the culture outlined in Veblen’s The Theory of Business Enterprise. Trump’s actions reveal the need to extend Polanyi’s idea of social protection given the negative effects of modern technology and Trump’s efforts to dismantle or reduce some regulatory agencies. Changing demographics and the adverse reaction to Trump’s fascist leanings may yet see the emergence of a new progressive era, suggesting, at least, that Trump represents the last gasp of neoliberalism.     

A Capital Controversy in Early Twentieth Century: Veblen vs. Clark

This article aims to assess the debate between John Bates Clark and the “old” institutionalist scholars — Thorstein Veblen, above all — with particular reference to the nature of capital and the functioning of the labor market. Although studies on both authors are numerous, relatively little attention has been paid to finding the crucial elements at the heart of their radical disagreement. A.J. Cohen (2014 Cohen, A.J. “Veblen Contra Clark and Fisher: Veblen-Robinson-Harcourt Lineages in Capital Controversy and Beyond.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 38, 6 (2014): 1493-1515.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) convincingly argues that Veblen’s attack on Clark is in the center of the capital controversy of the 1960s and 1970s. We propose an extension of this argument, based on the idea that Veblen’s attack on Clark follows three steps. First, Veblen defined capital in money terms and, at the same time, he saw it as the accumulated technological and institutional experience of a community. Second, insofar as capital cannot be reduced to a stock of physical goods, it is logically impossible to derive a function of the marginal labor productivity from the existing stock of capital. Third, insofar as the marginal productivity of labor cannot be measured, it follows that the equality between real wage and marginal labor productivity cannot logically hold. It also follows that, since it does not exist, this equality cannot be used as a basis for establishing that the equilibrium wage is a just wage.