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,Commons, and Veblen on Institutions

This article compares Schumpeter, Veblen, and Commons with regard to institutions setting up the paradigm of institutional evolutionary economics. Their theories are of a complex nature, and as such, it is very difficult to situate them in a clear‐cut tradition. The main similarity is their opposition to the thesis that market economy is an independent and self‐regulating system, in an attempt to integrate economic, sociological, and political perspectives with regard to the functioning of the system. Also, change per se is in contrast to the notion of equilibrium. Of course, despite the parallels, the existence of differences is undeniable.     

Are self-employment training programs effective? Evidence from Project GATE

We examine the efficacy of providing self-employment training to unemployed and other individuals interested in self-employment using data from Project GATE. This experimental design program offered self-employment training services to a random sample of individuals who expressed a strong interest in self-employment. We find that Project GATE was effective in helping unemployed participants to start their own business, leading to significant impacts in self-employment and overall employment soon after program entry. The program also helped unemployed participants remain self-employed and avoid unemployment even five years after program entry. However, the program was not effective in improving the labor market outcomes of participants who were not unemployed.