A Simple Model of Entrepreneurship for Principles of Economics Courses

The critical roles of entrepreneurs in creating, operating, and destroying markets, as well as their importance in driving long-term economic growth are still generally either absent from principles of economics texts or relegated to later chapters. The primary difficulties in explaining entrepreneurship at the principles level are the lack of a universally accepted definition, a plausible explanation of the demand for entrepreneurship, and a diagram that summarizes the impact of entrepreneurship on market equilibrium and growth—a definition, a story, and a picture. This article discusses how the notion of the stationary state associated with Schumpeter (1911 Schumpeter, J. A. 1911/1983. Theory of economic development., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  [Google Scholar]/1983), Knight (1921 Knight, F. H. 1921/1971. Risk, uncertainty and profit, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]/1971), and Weber (1930 Weber, M. 1930/2002. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, New York: Scribner's.  [Google Scholar]/2002) can provide a framework for integrating the entrepreneur into the early part of principles of economics courses.     

Identifying Neo-Schumpeterian Innovation in Service Firms: A Conceptual Essay with a Novel Classification

The identification of innovation in service firms is problematic since there is no consensus of opinion on its conceptualization. Recent papers suggest both distinctive features of innovation in services and distinctive types of service innovation. This article reviews and evaluates these findings from a Schumpeterian perspective. The evaluation justifies conceptualizing service innovation as a specific case of service development with a reference to Schumpeter, but not as strict as proposed by Drejer (2004) [Drejer, I. (2004) Identifying Innovation in Surveys of Services: A Schumpeterian Perspective. Research Policy, 33, 551–562]. Despite the simultaneity of production and consumption in services, this article claims that the distinction between product innovation and process innovation should be preferred to other ways of classifying innovation in service firms. Finally, changes in the denomination of services are advanced as a key to the identification of development and innovation in service firms.     

Hans Singer's debts to Schumpeter and Keynes

This essay discusses Hans Singer's intellectual formation andthe influences on his early writings and on his post-1947 developmenteconomics. It asks what impact the unusual experience of studyingwith both Schumpeter and Keynes had upon his subsequent economicthinking and practice. It argues that the influence of boththese mentors was surprisingly small, compared with that ofSpiethoff and Clark. Singer repaid his debts to Schumpeter andKeynes, but by working in the new currency of development economics,some of which was his own coinage. His motivation for this vasteffort was derived from the social egalitarianism of figuressuch as William Beveridge, Archbishop Temple and R. H. Tawney,rather than the liberalism of Schumpeter and Keynes.     

中国经济长期增长的困境与前景

从长时段进行分析,最近30多年,中国在全球化背景下的持续经济增长已可以称之为“奇迹”。从未来发展来看,中国经济增长面临着创新不足的“熊彼特困境”与有效需求不足的“凯恩斯困境”。但在城市化、基础设施投资、区域梯度开发效应、价值链提升等动力的推动下,在未来的5—10年里,中国经济仍会保持持续增长．     

非上市中小企业融资约束问题研究——基于修正的FHP模型的分析

在FHP模型的基础上,结合我国非上市中小企业的特性,对FHP模型的变量进行修正,建立了适于我国非上市中小企业融资约束的识别与估计的分析框架。以产能利用率为控制变量,超额现金流为解释变量,对非上市中小企业融资约束进行度量,其实证结果是显著的。     

演化经济理论的渊源与发展

演化经济思想的渊源可以追溯到马歇尔和熊彼特 ,纳尔逊和温特富有影响的著作《经济变迁的演化理论》问世后 ,演化经济理论更是得到了迅速发展。我们必须通过对演化思想发展历程的回顾 ,才能了解到演化经济理论的根本理念     

Augusto Graziani and the Marx-Schumpeter-Keynes ‘Cycle of Money Capital’: A Personal Look at the Early Italian Circuitism from an Insider

ABSTRACT

The paper goes back to the origins of the theory of the monetary circuit in its Italian incarnation. Focus is on the evolution of Augusto Graziani's thinking between mid-1970s and mid-1980s, considering: (i) how Graziani connected (positively or polemically) with Keynesianism and Post-Keynesianism, both in its Cambridge and US incarnations; (ii) how Graziani interpreted the contributions of Keynes proposing a continuity between the Treatise on Money, the General Theory, and the articles on finance published after the 1936 book; (iii) how beneath the research programme of Italian circuitism (Graziani) we may recognise a peculiar Marxian inspiration, later on pursued for a while by some participants to the Seminar in Monetary Theory that Graziani coordinated in Naples (1981–85). Since the mid-1970s Graziani — who already had a profound knowledge of Neoclassical Theory; and who was deeply aware of the role of institutions — developed more and more his heretical stance into what we may label as a ‘structural Keynesian' approach, inserting Keynes’ views about finance to production and effective demand into a Schumpeterian vision of the capitalist process, and leading to Marxian conclusions about value and distribution. The early forays into circuitism by Graziani were not only critical towards the Neoclassical Synthesis, Monetarism, or New Classical Macroeconomics. They were also grounded in an intense confrontation with other contemporary heterodox currents. The outcome was the construction of an original scheme of thought which amounted to nothing less than a macro-monetary theory of capitalist production.     

First-mover advantages and path dependence

One of the empirical regularities of a product or industry's life cycle is that the one or two firms that eventually emerge as the industry leaders tend to be among the first to enter the industry. In this paper, 1 inquire into the nature of ‘this first mover's advantage’ that might account for the dramatic and persistent differences in performance across firms that have been observed. I identify four categories of first mover advantage related to demand and supply factors, and link these concepts to that of path dependence.     

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.     

A spectre is haunting the world – the spectre of global capitalism

Individual property rights are fruitful for economic development because they civilise self-interest by forcing it to serve the common good. The history of previous property rights “cycles,” however, shows that their ability to do this deterioriates over time because the laws of property fall under the control of those whom property is meant to discipline. Irresponsible ownership then intensifies inequality until a breaking point is reached. The present cycle is no exception, but its breaking point has been postponed by the growth of the democratically-inspired welfare state. Globalisation is now eroding the financial basis of this, because mobile capital can escape taxation, leaving labour to carry the burden. The main thrust of this movement is now found in the World Trade Organisation, whose control of intellectual property and commitment to free trade in money as well as goods, can only increase inequality between countries as well as within them. It represents individual property rights which are out of any form of social control, since there is no global mechanism for civilising self-interest. Schumpeter's sense of the impending demise of capitalism, if not of its replacement by socialism, may yet be vindicated.