Innovation is at the core of any market economy and it is necessary for any organization to survive in competitive environments. This article aims to discuss the current approach to innovation seen in most of the management and economics literature and it will suggest that this understanding, loosely based on Schumpeter’s ideas on creative destruction, is not capable of representing the actual dynamism seen in the markets. In order to better understand that dynamism, the market process approach of the Austrian School is presented as a substitute. The comparison indicates that adopting the market process approach, in which entrepreneurship and innovation are endogenous and not-necessarily related to breaks or shocks, leads to a much better understanding of the innovation phenomena and, consequently, and opens new paths in the understanding of the entrepreneurial role. The work concludes presenting limitations and suggestions for future research in management, and economics, and finally, some pedagogical suggestions are also given.

O objetivo do presente trabalho é analisar a questão da regulação econômica aplicada ao setor aeroportuário, conciliando visões de três correntes de pensamento econômico sobre o tema. Serão mostradas as características das falhas de mercado na perspectiva neoclássica, representativas do mainstream econômico, e os problemas de tentar regular o setor a partir da perspectiva de duas diferentes escolas de pensamento econômico, com foco na visão da Escola Austríaca de Economia. Economia e algumas percepções da Escola de Escolha Pública.

The aim of this paper is to deploy the Austrian economic thought on monopoly to an ex-ante scenario, seeking other ways of state intervention that could create monopolies, in addition to well-known state concession. Therefore, we sought to identify regulatory costs and their indirect interference in the quantity of companies within industries, that creates a favorable scenario for the emergence of monopolies. Rothbard's (2009) proposition about the condition of the existence of monopolies is correct, but it can be complemented with an analysis of an indirect and unintentional creation of monopolies by the State.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pioneering work of the 19th-century French author Jean-Gustave Courcelle-Seneuil in developing a scientific perspective on management, whose origin is commonly associated with the contributions of Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol. Design/methodology/approach Through a historical analytical approach and doing a parallel analysis with the origins of the economic theory, fragments of two works by Jean-Gustave Courcelle-Seneuil (1813–1892) are analyzed: The Theoretical and Practical Treatise on Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Enterprises: A Business Manual (1855) and Ergonomics, the second part of the book Theoretical and Practical Treatise on Political Economy (1858), in which the author devotes a chapter to relevant aspects of management, such as entrepreneurship, production, human resources, finance and accounting. Findings In addition to noting the pioneering character of these contributions, particularly the emphasis on entrepreneurship, Courcelle-Seneuil’s argument favors in the 19th century a scientific approach to management, contradicting the belief of businesspeople of the time, according to whom management was something practical, impossible to be studied analytically. Research limitations/implications This study indicates that looking to the past is essential to know what has already been produced in a particular field of knowledge. This return to the origins is fundamental to understanding how science evolves. Although management as a systematized field of expertise is usually dated to the beginning of the 20th century, there are reasons to expand on the influences that gave rise to this science, particularly regarding lesser-known but equally important contributions. Originality/value This study explores a lesser-known contribution to the origin of management theory and seeks to contribute to the study of the origin of the division of the fields of management science, its roots and its intersection with the economic science practiced in the half of the 19th century.