Schumpeter on unemployment

Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s approach to the phenomenon of unemployment differs strongly from the traditional classification with its strict distinctions between frictional, cyclical and structural unemployment. By relating these three categories to his theory of creative destruction, Schumpeter collapsed them all into one: technological unemployment. In our paper, we provide a systematic overview and discussion of Schumpeter’s varied writings on unemployment, from 1908 to 1954. We compare his view with the positions of some of his contemporaries, such as Wicksell, Hicks, Beveridge and Keynes. Finally, we discuss to what extent recent writers, such as Aghion, Howitt and Caballero, have integrated Schumpeter’s approach into modern macroeconomics.     

Stolper on Schumpeter

This article is a review essay on Stolper’s recent book, Joseph Alois Schumpeter, The Public Life of a Private Man. The author recommends the book for a broad readership, although he raises a few critical observations.     

The evolutionary and non-Darwinian economics of Joseph Schumpeter

In a recent paper, Matthias Kelm (1997) accepts that `Schumpeter's definition of evolution does not contain any Darwinian mechanism such as natural selection or any other biological concept' and that Schumpeter `made no such attempt' to apply `Darwinian theory to economic evolution'. However, Kelm goes on to argue that Schumpeter would have been a Darwinian if circumstances were different. It is argued here that this contention is highly implausible because Schumpeter explicitly rejected biological metaphors and analogies in economics. Furthermore, Schumpeter misunderstood Darwinism. In his attempt to `interpret' Schumpeter as a Darwinian, Kelm himself misrepresents the three core principles of Darwinism. In addition Kelm's paper contains several misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the assessment of Schumpeter made by Hodgson (1993). This present response concludes that Schumpeter was indeed one of the greatest economists of the twentieth century and that he may legitimately be described as an `evolutionary economist'. However, he cautioned strongly against the use of biological metaphors in economics and there is no legitimate basis for describing his approach as Darwinian.     

From Schumpeter to Stiglitz

This article deals with Stiglitz's recent book Whither Socialism?. It presents a critical evaluation against the background of his earlier publication on the economic theory of the state. The author takes issue with Stiglitz's normative interpretation of welfare economics.     

Bill Waters on Schumpeter

Bill Waters’ dissertation “Entrepreneurship, Dualism, and Causality: An Appreciation of the Work of Joseph A. Schumpeter” completed at Georgetown University in 1952 is significant for two reasons. The first is clear enough from the very beginning: Schumpeter and the entrepreneur. The other comes to light through hindsight: Bill brings to bear an understanding of economic affairs which is personalist rather than individualist or collectivist in nature. In short, Bill sees as the main activating force in economic affairs not the impersonal forces of the market, not the central planning board, but the person who innovates, who acts bolding in economic affairs, the banker who creates credit, and the capitalist who supplies old funds. Thus the Waters’ dissertation says much not only about Schumpeter but also about Bill himself. His dissertation is his only book-length publication.     

Schumpeter und die Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsanalyse

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Schumpeter: Theorist of the avant-garde

This paper argues that Schumpeter’s 1911 edition of ‘Theory of Economic Development’ can be fruitfully read as a theory of the avant-garde, in line with such theories developed by artistic avant-garde around the same time, in particular by the Italian Futurists. In particular it will show that both Schumpeter and other avant-garde theorists sought to break with past (1), identify an avant-garde who could force that break (2), find new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), embrace the new and dynamic (4) and promote a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5). This new reading helps us to understand the cultural meaning of this seminal text in economics. Secondly it greatly facilitates our understanding of the differences with the later interwar German edition and English edition, which were more cautious in their embrace of the new, less focused on the individual qualities of the entrepreneur and placed more emphasis on historical continuity. Thirdly this reading suggests a different reason for the bifurcation between Schumpeter and the rest of the Austrian school of economics. Traditionally this split is explained by Schumpeter’s affinities with the Lausanne School, this paper instead suggests that the crucial break between Schumpeter on the one hand and Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and later members of the Austrian School on the other hand is their theory of and attitude toward social change.