Search results

Let me start by thanking Markus Becker and Thorbjørn Knudsen for making this important article available to us all and for providing such a careful translation. “Entrepreneur” is a central piece in Schumpeter’s production, and it is a sad fact that it has not been available in English till now. This article, to be more precise, is one of Schumpeter’s key writings on entrepreneurship. It is only rivaled, in this respect, by Chapter 2 in Theory of Economic Development (1911, 1926, 1934), some passages in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), and a few articles from the late 1940s. The sections on entrepreneurship in the two books I just mentioned are subordinate to the wider themes of these books and integrated into these; and the articles from the late 1940s represent primarily an attempt from Schumpeter’s side to forge a union between the economic theory of entrepreneurship and the economic history of entrepreneurship. When it comes to a single, comprehensive work that is exclusively devoted to entrepreneurship, “Entrepreneur” is unique and alone.

The English translation of Schumpeter’s essay on entrepreneurship, written around the time when he prepared the second edition of Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Enwicklung (1926), from which the English translation The Theory of Economic Development (1934) was made, contains many of the ideas found in The Theory of Economic Development and in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942). Since the essay, “Entrepreneur” (1928) is relatively short, yet contains most of the central ideas developed in his later works, the essay can be regarded as a blueprint for his life’s work. The task of evaluating the significance and the value of the translation in addressing the questions of whether or not, and the extent to which, Schumpeter had changed his ideas on entrepreneurship since the first edition of Theorie (1912), however, falls on Schumpeter scholars (e.g. Elliott, 1983; Shionoya, 1997). My comment here, instead, will be limited to Schumpeter’s concept of entrepreneurship as stated in the essay.

States that a more humane society is the ultimate goal of modern society, along with economy and form of government. Posits that in this study the theory of cheating the masses under capitalism and socialism‐communism, is valid ipso facto under fascism and any form of dictatorship. Looks at the problem of methodology and history and discusses: the use of deception; accumulation of illegitimate power; and the spreading of instability, and the exploitation of the masses. Concludes that the great transformation in the West and the East may develop of its own accord, but not necessarily without help, for the betterment of mankind unless pointed in the right direction.

Discusses how resources are allocated in capitalist and socialist economies comparing the concept of interest (e.g. for present value calculations) with the use of capital charges (e.g. for calculating opportunity cost). Contrasts the Islamic economic system, which rejects interest but considers moral factors and the will of Allah when measuring welfare. Explains how these ideas can be expressed in the accounting price of capital (for objective factors) and by Islamic welfare criteria; and how they differ from the Pareto Criterion and capitalist concepts of utility. Lists four principles and 12 welfare criteria for an Islamic allocation of resources; and some hints on their practical application before summarizing the conclusions.

This article does not pretend to represent an exhaustive survey of all the differences and similarities existing between Joseph Schumpeter and his fellow Austrians. To have carried out such a task would have required a detailed knowledge of the literature which was beyond that of the present writer. Instead, what is offered here is a particular interpretation of the major characteristics of Austrian economics, the relationship of Schumpeter to these, together with some fragmentary evidence in support of the views expressed. The article begins with a brief resumé of the leading personalities of the Austrian School of Economics. In the second section the suggestion that Schumpeter was not a true member of the Austrian School is examined. It is shown that the minor differences which did exist between Schumpeter and his colleagues on technical questions are more than outweighed by agreement on the substantive issues of their economic analysis. The third section deals with the attitudes of the Austrian School to questions of method while the remaining sections deal with the classical tradition in the theory of economic growth.

The previous major biographies of Schumpeter are found in the works by Allen (1991), März (1991), Stolper (1994), and Swedberg (1991). März's biography is a collection of independently written essays, some mainly biographical, and some mainly commenting on aspects of Schumpeter's economic thought. Stolper's signal contribution is to present evidence that explains and defends Schumpeter's activities in government and banking in Austria. Allen focuses extensively on the details of Schumpeter's personal life (see Moss, 1993), while Swedberg focuses more on the events and ideas of Schumpeter's academic life. McCraw also puts primary emphasis on Schumpeter's academic life, although he includes more information about Schumpeter's personal life than did März, Stolper, and Swedberg (often citing Allen's research as his source).

This paper argues that the well-known “two Schumpeters” thesis, as understood in the Anglo-American literature on technological change, is clearly wrong. Equally wrong is the idea that the fundamentals of Schumpeter’s thought on entrepreneurship were influenced importantly by his observation of large firms in the United States after 1931. The obsolescence thesis speaks to a distinction between early capitalism and later capitalism, perhaps, but not to an earlier and later Schumpeter. A more important point is that the obsolescence thesis is wrong. It rests on a confusion – or perhaps a bait-and-switch – between two quite different kinds of economic knowledge.

André Gide's prophetic words during an interview at Karlsbad in 1933: “Hitler represents a delay in the progress of humanity. There will be another peaceful Revolution in Spirit — different from Capitalism, Socialism‐Communism and Fascism — which will guide the development of humanity to its right destination.”

Questions the meanings of the economic concepts which are usually taken for granted by many economics textbooks. Discusses notions of “property” (including actual, legal, private and public property), “possession”, “market”, “capitalism”, “socialism”, “communism” and “planning”, all of which are customarily used in these textbooks as the given institutional framework within which each modern industrial economies operate.