The history of economics as economics?

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the current decline of the relationship between economics and the history of economics, and proposes a framework called the panorama-cum-scenario model for the practice of the history of economics. Starting with the Hegelian thesis that the history of economics is economics itself, the paper argues that such a relationship is necessary but not sufficient because the history of economics is a metatheory addressed to economic theory. The history of economics needs a panoramic view of the subject and a scenario for the construction, interpretation, and evaluation of the system of economics. The panorama-cum-scenario model enables us to work on the history of economics not only by historical and rational reconstruction but also by global reconstruction. Nietzsche's anti-Hegelian viewpoint and Heidegger's hermeneutical standpoint are useful for identifying the role of historical research in developing economic knowledge based on the panorama-cum-scenario model. Several approaches to the history of economics are examined in light of the panorama-cum-scenario model. Schumpeter's history of economics is interpreted as an example of the panorama-cum-scenario model.     

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.     

Schumpeter and new technology based firms: Towards a framework for how NTBFs cause creative destruction

Although Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” has become something of a buzzword, the theoretical underpinnings of his theory are largely missing from the recent literature on technological change. This paper explores the link between technological change and creative destruction, with particular attention being paid to the role of new technology-based firms in bringing this about. Recurring themes in the technological change literature are examined. These show that the phenomenon of dominant firms failing due to the introduction of a new (disruptive) technology is creative destruction in action. NTBFs are the most common introducers of disruptive technologies and a leading driver of creative destruction.     

From Schumpeterian Democracy to Constitutional Democracy

A critical issue of a constitutional democracy is to determine an optimal limitation of citizens' political liberties. This problem is analysed here within the framework of a parliamentary system of government, and in the context of Rawls' principle of equal political participation. It is argued that optimal barriers to entry into political competition are a function of the legislative decision rules, the domain of collective choices, and the rules for selecting (and dismissing) the executive. Contrary to Schumpeter and Riker who rejected populism (the approach that public policy should be a result of citizens' preferences), we argue that it is possible to reconcile greater citizen participation and liberal democracy with an appropriate institutional design.     

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.     

To eat or to be eaten–on the role of entrepreneurship in the Norwegian telecom access sector

The purpose of this paper is to analyse mechanisms of evolution by studying a population of firms involved in the provision of telecom access in Norway after the liberation of the telecom sector during the 1990s. The approach is based on a combination of theory on entrepreneurship and theories on sectoral innovation systems, in particular the role of entrepreneurship under different technological regimes. By analysing the role of different actors in the market for telecom access, the relationship between the previous state monopolist Telenor and other companies entering the market is discussed. The main conclusion is that Telenor, in spite of the liberalization of the telecom market, still is in a very dominant position in the markets for access provision. To the extent that Telenor is challenged, it is basically by other existing telecom companies. By the time of finalizing this paper (2006), none of the entrepreneurial firms have survived as independent firms. The main conclusion deriving from this analysis, is that the telecom access sector is characterized by the routinized regime, in which the larger, established firms are the dominant players. However, this does not mean that entrepreneurs do not play important roles. By starting their new ventures, entrepreneurs are challenging the positions of the incumbents; they are contributing to more competition and innovation. Without the pressure from the entrepreneurial entrants, the level of innovation in the sectoral system would have been significantly lower.     

Terms of trade movements and the global economic crisis

Dramatic changes in the relative prices of goods in international trade have accompanied, and indeed preceded, the recent global crisis. The causes and effects of the relative price changes are analysed by applying the analysis of business cycles developed by Joseph Schumpeter. Schumpeter’s analysis emphasises innovation and structural change (particularly creative destruction) which impart uneven development on the economy and can foster financial crises. This puts the current crisis in the context of long-wave development of the capitalist system and leads to predictions about the likely path of price and output changes over the next few decades.     

A Schumpeterian model of endogenous innovation and growth

A disequilibrium model of endogenous innovation and growth is presented. The behaviour of the agents is supposed to be governed by routines, not by maximization. The entrepreneurs are assumed to invest a fraction of their operating profits in real capital accumulation, and another fraction in R&D. The latter leads to an increase in labour productivity via a R&D production function. In this Schumpeterian model, not only the R&D processes of innovations are considered, but the diffusion processes as well. As in Schumpeter's theory of economic development the economic impact of technical change is considered a disequilibrium phenomenon. Thus, in a capitalist economy characterized by ongoing diffusion processes of innovations, time averages are more important than steady state values even in a long run perspective.     

熊彼特与哈耶克对奥地利传统的批判与继承——以瓦尔拉斯均衡为切入点

熊彼特与哈耶克同属于奥地利学派,对瓦尔拉斯均衡的态度却截然相反,原因在于对均衡、静态与动态等概念的不同理解。熊彼特认为静态均衡模型能够实现,承认瓦尔拉斯均衡是经济的"有序机制",对动态问题的关注是其在现代经济学领域最杰出的成就。哈耶克则关注市场经济的均衡过程,用时际一般均衡理论发展了静态分析,将均衡与信息问题相联系,试图引导经济学从均衡分析走向获取和交流知识的过程,对现代均衡理论产生了深远影响。