The Lost Chapter of Schumpeter’s &amp; ‘E conomic Development’

Meerhaeghe, M. A. G. van

doi:10.1007/0-306-48082-4_11

“…The seventh chapter became the focus of interest above all thanks to the curiosity for the reason why it was removed from the later editions of the book, as well as its requirements as to form: Schumpeter states that he removed the seventh chapter from the English edition because he fears that 'the fragment on "Kultursoziologie" in the seventh chapter could sometimes divert the reader's attention from "problems of dry economic theory", which I would like to be solved' (cited by Meerhaeghe 2003, see also Shionoya 1990a). As far as the requirements as to form in the chapter are concerned, it may be seen that the chapter is the longest part of the book.…”

Section: Schumpeter's Understanding Of Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may be inferred that Schumpeter also sees these criticisms as justified and explains his self-critique of long paragraphs and sentences with his psychology of 'verbosity and complacency of youth' (ibid.). There were those who explained this situation with the characteristics of the 1910s (insufficient establishment/ recognition of the concepts of neoclassical economics), as well as with the purpose of Schumpeter for writing this book (for the purpose of clarifying, often without avoiding repetitions, the marginal utility theory of value and Walras's general equilibrium framework to the Society of German Economists who were unaware of these developments and adopted the approach of the German Historical School) (Meerhaeghe 2003).…”

Section: Schumpeter's Understanding Of Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method and scope in Joseph A. Schumpeter's economics: a pluralist perspective

Yay

¹

2021

Journal of Philosophical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the ideas on the scope and method of economics of Joseph Schumpeter who is one of the important economists of the 20th century. The study consists of four sections: In the first section we underline the interesting points of his life to understand the roots, background, or 'vision' of his thought system. In the second section, we will examine his methodological views that he asserted in his first (but translated into English only in 2010) book. Third section will be concerned with his 'analysis of economics' which refers to his critics of Leon Walras's general equilibrium analysis (as static) and his own alternative (dynamics analysis of capitalist economies) about the central subject matter of economics. In the fourth section we will treat his approach about the development/evolution process of economic thought in time. The study concludes with a brief assessment: Schumpeter is one of the rare economists who can build his own thought system in the history of economics, and he embraced a pluralist perspective in the field of the methodology of economics.

show abstract

“…In analyzing Schumpeter as an avantgarde theorist, however, we will see that if anything these theories should be called Mark II and III, for Schumpeter's 1911 theory of economic evolution is substantially different from those later versions. Recent scholarship has re-appreciated the importance of the first edition of TWE, however it has mainly focused on the methodological implications for the Schumpeterian project of the 'missing' seventh chapter (Shionoya 1990;Peukert 2003;Meerhaeghe 2003; notable exceptions are Swedberg 2009;Becker et al 2012). The omitted chapter is interesting for methodological concerns, but it also contains important aspects of Schumpeter's embrace of the new, and his theory of social change as brought about by an avant-garde (Andersen 2011).…”

Section: Jel Classification A12 B10 O00mentioning

confidence: 99%

Schumpeter, Theorist of the Avant-Garde

Dekker

¹

2016

SSRN Journal

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that Schumpeter's 1911 edition of 'Theory of Economic Development' can be fruitfully read as a theory of the avant-garde, in line with such theories developed by artistic avant-garde around the same time, in particular by the Italian Futurists. In particular it will show that both Schumpeter and other avant-garde theorists sought to break with past (1), identify an avant-garde who could force that break (2), find new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), embrace the new and dynamic (4) and promote a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5). This new reading helps us to understand the cultural meaning of this seminal text in economics. Secondly it greatly facilitates our understanding of the differences with the later interwar German edition and English edition, which were more cautious in their embrace of the new, less focused on the individual qualities of the entrepreneur and placed more emphasis on historical continuity. Thirdly this reading suggests a different reason for the bifurcation between Schumpeter and the rest of the Austrian school of economics. Traditionally this split is explained by Schumpeter's affinities with the Lausanne School, this paper instead suggests that the crucial break between Schumpeter on the one hand and Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and later members of the Austrian School on the other hand is their theory of and attitude toward social change.

show abstract

“…In analyzing Schumpeter as an avantgarde theorist, however, we will see that if anything these theories should be called Mark II and III, for Schumpeter's 1911 theory of economic evolution is substantially different from those later versions. Recent scholarship has re-appreciated the importance of the first edition of TWE, however it has mainly focused on the methodological implications for the Schumpeterian project of the 'missing' seventh chapter (Shionoya 1990;Peukert 2003;Meerhaeghe 2003;notable exceptions are Swedberg 2009;Becker et al 2012). The omitted chapter is interesting for methodological concerns, but it also contains important aspects of Schumpeter's embrace of the new, and his theory of social change as brought about by an avant-garde (Andersen 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Schumpeter: Theorist of the avant-garde

Dekker

¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that Schumpeter's 1911 edition of 'Theory of Economic Development' can be fruitfully read as a theory of the avant-garde, in line with such theories developed by artistic avant-garde around the same time, in particular by the Italian Futurists. In particular it will show that both Schumpeter and other avant-garde theorists sought to break with past (1), identify an avant-garde who could force that break (2), find new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), embrace the new and dynamic (4) and promote a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5). This new reading helps us to understand the cultural meaning of this seminal text in economics. Secondly it greatly facilitates our understanding of the differences with the later interwar German edition and English edition, which were more cautious in their embrace of the new, less focused on the individual qualities of the entrepreneur and placed more emphasis on historical continuity. Thirdly this reading suggests a different reason for the bifurcation between Schumpeter and the rest of the Austrian school of economics. Traditionally this split is explained by Schumpeter's affinities with the Lausanne School, this paper instead suggests that the crucial break between Schumpeter on the one hand and Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and later members of the Austrian School on the other hand is their theory of and attitude toward social change.

show abstract

The Lost Chapter of Schumpeter’s & ‘E conomic Development’

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Method and scope in Joseph A. Schumpeter's economics: a pluralist perspective

Method and scope in Joseph A. Schumpeter's economics: a pluralist perspective

Schumpeter, Theorist of the Avant-Garde

Schumpeter: Theorist of the avant-garde

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About