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.     

J.A. Schumpeter and T.B. Veblen on economic evolution: the dichotomy between statics and dynamics

At present, the discussion on the dichotomy between statics and dynamics is resolved by concentrating on its mathematical meaning. Yet, a simple formalisation masks the underlying methodological discussion. Overcoming this limitation, the paper discusses Schumpeter's and Veblen's viewpoint on dynamic economic systems as systems generating change from within. It contributes to an understanding on their ideas of how economics could become an evolutionary science and on their contributions to elaborate an evolutionary economics. It confronts Schumpeter's with Veblen's perspective on evolutionary economics and provides insight into their evolutionary economic theorising by discussing their ideas on the evolution of capitalism.     

Looking Backward at Feasible Socialism: Using Bellamy to Teach Schumpeter

This article demonstrates the parallels between Bellamy's fictional society in Looking Backward and Schumpeter's socialist blueprint Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. The socialist system Joseph Schumpeter describes is nearly identical to that in Edward Bellamy's utopia. Because Bellamy's society is a concrete one set within the readable confines of a novel, it provides a useful benchmark for students analyzing Schumpeter.     

Marx and Schumpeter: A Comparison of their Theories of Development

This paper challenges Paul Samuelson's claim that the development theories of Marx and Schumpeter have little in common. There are indeed broad similarities between the two theories, arising principally from Schumpeter's use of Marx's method (with some interesting modifications), which he calls the ‘economic interpretation of history’. This discussion leads us to ask if we can incorporate into Marx's method some of the insights suggested by Schumpeter's modifications. We show that Marx's method is enriched by the insertion into it of an explicit, although limited, role of the individual (human agency). The paper then turns to the differences between the two theories, concerning the theory of value and the analysis of social classes. We find an unresolved tension in Schumpeter's system of thought, between his attempt to construct a model of a dynamic, evolving economy on Marxian lines (albeit an alternative to Marx's model), and his emphasis on the role of the individual, which he inserts into an essentially static, Walrasian model.     

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.     

Schumpeter’s new combinations

The paper focuses attention on Schumpeter’s achievements in his classic contribution and how these relate to the contributions of other major authors. While deeply indebted to Marx’s vision of capitalism as a system incessantly in travail, Schumpeter was no ‘Marxist’. He shared B?hm’s view that profits are not due to ‘exploitation’, but thought that the latter’s attack on Marx was a failure. There are remarkable differences, but also similarities between the analyses of Schumpeter and Keynes. Marx, Schumpeter and Keynes rejected Say’s law and other basic ideas constituting the marginalist doctrine. They saw capitalism as a restless, crisis-prone system.     

Economic theorist and ‘entrepreneur of popularisation’: Schumpeter as Finance Minister and journalist

Abstract

Modern theory of popularisation suggests that the production and the popularisation of scientific knowledge are interlinked and interactive processes. This perspective offers new insights into Joseph A. Schumpeter's main work in public finance, The Crisis of the Tax State, and into his later endeavours as Finance Minister and journalist to popularise two central economic ideas of this work, the once-and-for-all capital levy and the reform of the tax system. We demonstrate that Schumpeter's Crisis contains popularising features and was written with a popularising intention. Furthermore, we show that in his journalistic works popularisation went hand in hand with the development of innovative economic ideas.     

Schumpeter and the `Schmollerprogramm': integrating theory and history in the analysis of economic development

This essay addresses the historical and institutional aspects of Schumpeter's thought. It suggests that Schumpeter prepared a pluralist research agenda, formulated in accordance with the conceptual perspective of the German Historical School, as presented by major scholars such as Schmoller, Sombart, Spiethoff and Max Weber. Schumpeter's notion of development, with its emphasis on the correspondence of economic and socio-cultural evolution, is therefore to be viewed in the context of the comprehensive Schmollerian approach. Moreover the ethical-evolutionary components of Schmoller's ideas point at the vital role of the German Historical School in the elaboration of a modern evolutionary economics in Schumpeterian terms. The essay concludes that the Schmollerprogramm is going to inspire further developments in Schumpeterian economics, as the integration of theory and history continuously marks the research agenda of evolutionary approaches to economic development.     

The interdependence between economic analysis and methodology in the work of Joseph A. Schumpeter ∗

Abstract

This paper offers an overview of Schumpeter's entire economic work from a methodological perspective. Only from this ‘birds-eye’ view do all the well-known parts of his work become part of a mosaic which – from a distance – forms a picture of logical succession: It tells the story of an intensive search for an appropriate analytical understanding of the phenomenon of economic change. As a result, this paper argues that, from a methodological perspective, Schumpeter's work appears to be anything but a monolithic unit.     

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 A. Schumpeter’s contributions in the area of fiscal sociology: a first approximation

Fiscal sociology deals with the ramifications of the fiscal activities of the state into areas which are not their primary target. These effects may occur in sectors not directly affected such as related markets, but they may also occur outside the economic sphere proper, such as in politics, culture, religion, or society at large. Schumpeter contributed to the research project of fiscal sociology throughout his life. In this first approximation, his contribution is discussed in terms of his appreciation of three important scholars who all made landmark contributions to fiscal sociology: Franz Oppenheimer, Werner Sombart, and Gustav (von) Schmoller.JEL Classification: B15, H39     

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.     

Schumpeter on the integration of theory and history

This paper assesses Joseph Schumpeter's agenda for the integration of theory and history. On the basis of a critical realist conception of the nature of historical theory it is argued that Schumpeter's aims are at odds with his analytical strategy: his implicit ontology cannot be reconciled with his conception of theory. An illustration is provided as to how this mismatch is reproduced in Schumpeter's substantive attempts to integrate theory and history, and brief reflections are offered as to why this mismatch arose and endured.     

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.     

The phenomenon of equifinality in innovative development of the monetary private ownership economy —An axiomatic set-up

The phenomenon of the equifinality can be understood as a possibility to achieve a given final state in many potential ways, regardless of the initial state. The study of this phenomenon is particularly relevant in today's world, where one of the main problems is the transformation of post-communist countries' economies so that they reach the states close to the economic systems of developed countries. This transformation takes place in the process of economic development stimulated by innovation, with the active role of the banking sphere.Thus, the main purpose of this study is to define the concept of equifinality achieved in a finite time, in an innovative development of the economic system controlled by the banks and the analysis of its properties. For this purpose the possible trajectories of development are studied here in a space of innovative extensions of private ownership economy with money, for which the target state is an innovative extension of a given model.This analysis uses the apparatus of an Arrow–Debreu general equilibrium theory and the theory of dynamical systems. Simultaneously, the work presented is a development of earlier studies in modeling of the Schumpeter's vision of the economic development (Ciałowicz and Malawski, 2007, 2011).     

Neo-Schumpeterian price theory with Sraffian and post-Keynesian elements

This paper contributes to the development of a neo-Schumpeterian price theory by combining elements of Sraffian and post-Keynesian price theory with elements drawn from Schumpeter’s own theory of prices. The result is an integrated heterodox approach to price theory incorporating the realism of post-Keynesian pricing rules and the rigour of Sraffa’s formal modelling, along with Schumpeter’s insight that capitalism develops “from within” in a disruptive and uneven manner.     

Lange's 1938 model: dynamics and the “optimum propensity to consume”

Abstract

Oskar Lange's 1938 article “The Rate of Interest and the Optimum Propensity to Consume” is usually associated with the original IS-LM approach of the late 1930s. However, Lange's article was not only an attempt to illuminate Keynes's main innovations but the first part of a wide project that included the development of a theory of economic evolution. This paper aims at showing that Lange's article can help in illuminating critical aspects of this project: in particular, Lange's idea that a synthesis between Kaldor's and Kalecki's theories and that of Schumpeter, might have been possible and that it represented (in intentions) a “modern” and consistent reconstruction of the Marxist theory of the business cycle. Section 2 clarifies Lange's early reflection on dynamics. Section 3 centres on Lange's 1938 static model and indicates the effects of a change of saving on investment. Section 4 suggests a dynamic reconstruction from which are addressed important arguments raised by Lange in a series of papers written between 1934 and 1942.     

A New Typology for Economic Sectors with a view to Policy Implications

This paper is an attempt to tease out a typology of economic sectors based on a systems approach to innovation and economic growth that may be useful for policy analysis. The typology explored here revolves around novel products rather than ethereal knowledge-producing entities. This insight goes back to Allyn Young (1928) and Joseph Schumpeter (1934) who argued that the introduction of new goods was the engine of economic growth. More precisely, our typology of sectors focuses on novel products which are efficiency-enhancing within and between sectors through the market mechanism. The scheme revolves around the relationship between 'Enabling' and 'Recipient' sectors (which gives the typology its name: ER), and offers a lens for viewing and interpreting a substantive part of the mechanics of modern economic growth. The last part of the paper briefly discusses a few immediate policy implications, although it has the potential for greater use and value in this regard.     

A real and monetary analysis of capitalism

Building on ideas of Joseph Schumpeter, this paper constructs and compares a real and a monetary model of capitalism. The paper’s thesis is that real and monetary analysis are both necessary for describing the capitalist cycle. The real model is in four parts. The first part is a simplified static Walrasian exchange. The second part uses a time dynamic to show price and productivity equilibrium over time. The third part defines surplus-value, capital, accumulation, profit and producer’s surplus. The fourth part defines economic evolution and long-term analysis. Each of the four parts has a corresponding Mathematica program and a table of sample data. The real model shows a relationship between long term average profit, GDP and capitalization. A monetary model is then constructed which empirically defines monetary and real products, the capital-market, the real economy and investment. The monetary model is first described under conditions of laissez-faire. The concepts of appreciation, overinvestment and the capitalist cycle are defined with the aid of the real model. Finally, the post laissez-faire capitalist cycle is described with an emphasis on the government policies of post 1980 capitalism. The conclusion of the paper—based on the real and monetary models—is that post 1980 capitalism changes but does not eliminate the capitalist cycle because government policies do not address over-investment, rather these policies abet over-investment.