Literatura académica sobre el tema "Schumpeter-theory"

The author claims that J. Kornai in his paper Innovation and Dynamism (Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2012. No 4) ignored the understanding of socialism as a specific type of culture and not just as an economic system. He also shows profound differences between Schumpeters theory and mainstream economic models. Evolutionary theory, he claims, may itself become mainstream if Schumpeters legacy is not interpreted straightforwardly and if evolutionary economists consider not only micro-, but also macro-level of analysis in studying macrogenerations of capital of a different age.

Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter have contributed to the disciplines of economics and sociology. Their contributions combined history with theory, taking into account the interactions between the fields of economics and sociology. Weber viewed the structure of religious and moral thought as being the basic factor engendering changes in economic and social structures, whereas Schumpeter focused on the creative actions of the entrepreneur. Despite these differences in their approaches, it is possible to claim that economic sociology is the common legacy stemming from the writings of Weber and Schumpeter. This study will propose that the analyses of Weber and Schumpeter in the area of economic sociology are crucial methodological tools and provide a comprehensive analytical framework in understanding economic and social structures. Accordingly, this study examines Weber?s ideas on economic sociology, by means of rational capitalism, bureaucratization, and iron cage concepts, in addition to Schumpeter?s methodology, and his energetic/creative action of the entrepreneur.

Quem fala de inovação geralmente pensa em Schumpeter, e às vezes chega a referir-se a suas idéias. Uma pergunta que cabe fazer nestes casos é a de qual delas, já que o pensamento de Schumpeter a respeito do tema foi se modificando ao longo de sua carreira, não sendo exatamente igual no início e no final da mesma. Inclusive entre os que se autodenominam schumpeterianos ou neo- schumpeterianos, são raros os que conhecem todos os trabalhos do autor e as diferenças que existem entre eles, tendendo por causa disso a difundir uma visão parcial, quando não distorcida, do conjunto de suas teorias.

The present article introduces Development, a new, unpublished and hitherto unknown article by Joseph A. Schumpeter from 1932. Development is remarkable because it significantly adds to Schumpeter's known works on a number of issues that were central to his theory of economic development. Development shows that Schumpeter considered the explanation of novelty as the most important unsolved scientific problem. Schumpeter doubts the explanatory value of entrepreneurship and indicates that theoretical advances might be forthcoming that can help a better understanding of the social dynamics which gives rise to novelty.

Joseph A. Schumpeter's celebrated theory of creative destruction was anticipated by David Wells's Recent Economic Changes (1989). In some respects, Wells's treatment is superior to that of Schumpeter. Unlike Schumpeter, who believed that monopolistic competition could maximize economic growth, Wells held that cartels or trusts were necessary to prevent capital-intensive firms from competing themselves into bankruptcy and sending the economy into a depression.

This paper brings together and expands methodological ideas on Joseph Alois Schumpeter that I have discussed in detail and at length elsewhere (Shionoya 1997). Schumpeter is known for his wide-ranging work, and I interpret it as an attempt a universal social science consisting of three systems of thought: i.e., substantive theory, metatheory, and pretheory. These three systems stand for the scope and method of his universal social science.

The current global economic crisis has put into question the elucidating ability of many economic approaches, in particular those based on neoclassical assumptions, marked roughly by the tendency to equilibrium (self-tuning) as well as the treatment of superficial functions of money in the capitalist system. Similarly, the work of some authors from the heterodox line has gained more space in discussions precisely because give special attention to the role of money in the functioning of the capitalist economic dynamics, and also observe the system on the prism of inherent instability. Regarding the crisis, the mainstream has pointed to possible failures of economic policies of the U.S. government, in turn, heterodox analyzes have indicated, generally, the lack of regulation of financial markets. Beyond these interpretations, however, one of the most striking elements of this process - from the formation of the bubble subprime crisis - were financial innovations that led to the emergence of a period of global economic prosperity. Thus it broadens the perception of innovation as an important element in the formation of economic cycles, encouraging discussion and research on both topics. In order to further explore the relationship between theories that treat innovation as a key driver of the business cycle, we propose an analysis of rapprochement between the views of business cycles from Schumpeter and Minsky. The differences between the heuristic models used in their analysis are considerable, but it is precisely here that lies the challenge and the goal of this dissertation: trying to establish a complementarity between the views of cycle from the two economists, despite the differences in their models. Thus, the hypothesis holds that innovation is central in explaining business cycles in the theoretical approaches of Schumpeter and Minsky, which makes their visions of the dynamics of a market economy complementary. There is, therefore, the question: Is it possible to explain the centrality that has innovations in explaining business cycles from the complementarity of the views of Schumpeter and Minsky cycle? In making this dissertation it was applied the methodology of assessment literature. We exposed the differences between the theories of the business cycle of Minsky and Schumpeter, but also identified traits in common in the views of the two. Above all, despite the differences between the theoretical legacies and heuristic models, it was observed that the visions of cycle from the two economists have considerable approaches together. It was observed that, in fact, the views of Schumpeter and Minsky cycles are complementary. According to Vercelli assumption there is a relation of complementarity among the cycles of the two economists. However, the main question of this dissertation concerns the complementary of cycle visions from Schumpeter and Minsky. However, it is not entirely abandoned the Vercelli assumption since, based on what has been discussed, it can be stated that financial innovations possibly arising on market conditions similar to that tend to arise technological innovations (relative stability, for example). Although, not necessarily, the two cycles has to occur simultaneously and dependent. In short, we can say that a reconciliation between the vision of technological cycle of Schumpeter and vision of Minsky's financial cycle is able to make more explicit the cyclical dynamics of the capitalist system and the role of innovation in this process. Thus we conclude that innovation is central in explaining business cycles in the theoretical approaches of Schumpeter and Minsky, which makes their visions of the dynamics of a market economy complementary.<br>A atual crise econômica mundial tem posto em cheque a capacidade elucidativa de muitas abordagens da teoria econômica, em especial as que possuem base nos pressupostos neoclássicos, marcados, grosso modo, pela tendência ao equilíbrio (auto-ajuste), bem como o tratamento superficial das funções da moeda no sistema capitalista. No mesmo sentido, a obra de alguns autores de linha heterodoxa tem ganhado maior espaço nas discussões justamente por dispensarem atenção especial ao papel da moeda no funcionamento da dinâmica econômica capitalista, além de também observarem o sistema sobre o prisma da instabilidade inerente. No tocante à crise, o mainstream tem apontado para possíveis equívocos de políticas governamentais americanas, por sua vez, as análises heterodoxas têm indicado, grosso modo, a insuficiência de regulamentação dos mercados financeiros. Para além dessas interpretações, contudo, um dos elementos mais marcantes desse processo – desde a formação da bolha do subprime à crise − foram as inovações financeiras, que propiciaram o surgimento de um período de prosperidade econômica mundial. Desse modo amplia-se a percepção da inovação como um elemento importante na formação dos ciclos econômicos, motivando a discussão e investigação sobre ambos os temas. Com o intuito de explorar melhor a relação entre as teorias que tratam a inovação como principal propulsor dos ciclos econômicos, propomos uma análise de aproximação entre as visões de ciclos econômicos de Schumpeter e de Minsky. As diferenças entre os modelos heurísticos empregados em suas respectivas análises são consideráveis; mas, é justamente nesse ponto que reside o desafio e o objetivo dessa dissertação: tentar estabelecer uma complementariedade entre as visões de ciclo dos dois economistas, a despeito das diferenças de seus modelos. Assim, sustenta-se a hipótese de que a inovação é central na explicação dos ciclos econômicos nas abordagens teóricas de Schumpeter e Minsky, o que torna suas visões da dinâmica de uma economia de mercado complementares. Coloca-se, portanto, a seguinte questão: É possível explicitar a centralidade que tem as inovações na explicação dos ciclos econômicos a partir da complementariedade das visões de ciclo de Schumpeter e Minsky? Na confecção dessa dissertação aplicou-se a metodologia de apreciação bibliográfica. Foram expostas as diferenças que existem entre as teorias de ciclo econômico de Minsky e Schumpeter, mas também foram identificados traços que aproximam as visões dos dois. Sobretudo, a despeito das divergências entre as heranças teóricas e os modelos heurísticos, observou-se que as visões de ciclo dos dois economistas apresentam aproximações consideráveis entre si. Observou-se que, na realidade, as visões dos ciclos de Schumpeter e Minsky se complementam. Segundo a suposição de Vercelli há uma relação de complementariedade entre os próprios ciclos dos dois economistas. Entretanto, a questão principal dessa dissertação diz respeito à complementariedade das visões de ciclo de Schumpeter e Minsky. Contudo, não se abandonou inteiramente a suposição de Vercelli uma vez que, com base no que foi discutido, pode-se afirmar que as inovações financeiras surgem, possivelmente, diante de condições de mercado semelhantes em que tendem a surgir as inovações tecnológicas (relativa estabilidade, por exemplo). Embora não necessariamente os ciclos tenham que ocorrer de forma simultânea e dependente. Em suma, pode-se dizer que uma conciliação entre a visão de ciclo tecnológico de Schumpeter e a visão de ciclo financeiro de Minsky é capaz de tornar mais explícita a dinâmica cíclica do sistema capitalista, bem como o protagonismo da inovação nesse processo. Conclue-se assim que a inovação é central na explicação dos ciclos econômicos nas abordagens teóricas de Schumpeter e Minsky, o que torna suas visões da dinâmica de uma economia de mercado complementares.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-25T20:22:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ronaldo Tadeu de Souza.pdf: 589010 bytes, checksum: c2d6046b6148efe03f72fd16fa7b513f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-11-26<br>Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico<br>This aims at studying the contemporary democratic theory, specifically, the study of theory elitist democracy of Joseph Schumpeter. The democratic theory and after World War II was decisively influenced by the ideas of democracy of Joseph Schumpeter. This means that the discipline of political science was also influenced by the ideas of democracy elitist of Schumpeter. The theory of Schumpeter on democracy sought resolve the question of how to limit the participation and assistance from the man of the people in the decisions of state. To answer this Schumpeter draws on some variables. Among those highlighted the parameters of the English parliamentary system and functionality of the social democrat parties. These two variables allowed Joseph Schumpeter to define democracy as an institutional method that allows the selection of leaders through the fight for votes of the people. Several authors and democratic currents had criticized the theory of limited democracy in the Austro-American economist, for example: the participativistas Carole Pateman and Peter Bachrach and deliberativista Jürgen Habermas, but all were inadequate. So I chose undertake this critical study from the Marxist political theory, more precisely the Marxist theory that was contemporary with Joseph Schumpeter, namely the Marxist theory of the beginning of this century. This is also justified by the fact that Schumpeter himself in his work "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" undertakes a critique of Marxist socialism to build his theory of democracy based on leadership and the exclusion of people from politics. Our method was to analyse the main points of the central text of "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", namely the text of Part IV - "Socialism and Democracy." We also use as a method historical research-politician who served on Schumpeter to build their own theory. Our hypothesis is that the theory of democratic leadership of Joseph Schumpeter was an attempt to develop a conceptual structure that would allow the continuation of the unstable equilibrium of the bourgeois domination<br>O presente tem como objetivo o estudo da teoria democrática contemporânea, especificamente, o estudo da teoria elitista da democracia de Joseph Schumpeter. A teoria democrática após e Segunda Guerra Mundial foi influenciada decisivamente pelas concepções de democracia de Joseph Schumpeter. Isto significa dizer que a disciplina de ciência política foi influenciada também, pelas concepções da democracia elitista de Schumpeter. A teoria de Schumpeter sobre a democracia buscou resolver à questão de como limitar a participação e intervenção do homem do povo nas decisões de Estado. Para responder isto Schumpeter recorre a algumas variáveis. Dentre estas destacamos os parâmetros do regime parlamentar inglês e a funcionalidade dos partidos social-democratas. Estas duas variáveis permitiram a Joseph Schumpeter a definir democracia como um método institucional que permite a seleção de lideres através da luta pelos votos do povo. Diversos autores e correntes democráticas haviam criticado a teoria restrita de democracia do economista austro-americano, como por exemplo: os participativistas Carole Pateman e Peter Bachrach e o deliberativista Jürgen Habermas; mas todas se mostraram insuficientes. Por isso escolhemos empreender este estudo crítico a partir da teoria política marxista, mais precisamente da teoria marxista que foi contemporânea a Joseph Schumpeter, ou seja, a teoria marxista do começo do século XX. Isto se justifica também pelo fato de que o próprio Schumpeter em sua obra Capitalismo, Socialismo e Democracia empreende uma crítica ao socialismo marxista para construir sua teoria da democracia baseada na liderança e na exclusão do povo da política. Nosso método consistiu em analisar os pontos principais do texto central de Capitalismo, Socialismo e Democracia , a saber, o texto da Parte IV - Socialismo e Democracia . Também utilizamos como método investigações histórico-político que serviram ao próprio Schumpeter para construir sua teoria. Nossa hipótese é que a teoria da liderança democrática de Joseph Schumpeter era uma tentativa de elaborar uma estrutura conceitual que permitisse a manutenção do equilíbrio instável do regime de dominação burguês

碩士<br>銘傳大學<br>經濟學系碩士在職專班<br>94<br>Since has entered the knowledge economy, the global various social strata widespread quotation innovation, innovates to the economic society, the enterprise, social class honest like Schumpeter advocated brings the economic society radical transformation, by the past agricultural stage, the industry time, the commercial time enters the network hypothesized, innovates the value in the original resources so long as is realized then brings the influence, but its influence long short-term, along with the innovation acceleration, causes the preceding issue of innovation more and more quickly to give by the new innovation the annihilate, namely Schumpeter advocated creative destruction. Does not need the big enterprise people in charge, has ability to create the entrepreneur who the excess profit, the innovation materializer have the entrepreneurial spirit, its difference only lies in the innovation value size, but still caused the social class to bring the change. Synthesis forecited, this research thought although bear Peter innovated the theory at that time not to receive in the publication favors, but may fully and the nowadays time economic society develops unifies.

Schumpeter’s venture money examines the role of financial innovation and monetary thought throughout economic history, following the unique perspective of the leading scholar of a monetary theory of economic development. It proceeds with the analysis along three threads. The first thread is the history of money, or more precisely the continuous stream of innovations that has improved and expanded the scope of financing new ventures. The second thread is the complementary stream of ideas in the history of monetary thought. Finally, Josef Schumpeter himself, his theoretical vision and personal vita of failed financial ventures, is the third thread that ties everything together.

The paper commemorates the 70th anniversary of the death of Joseph Alois Schumpeter, the world-renowned economist of Czech-Austrian origin and creator of innovation theory. It analyses Schumpeter’s work from the perspective of two aspects, complementing each other in his work: historical economic analysis and entrepreneurial innovation theory. The introduction reveals the genesis of his relation to enterprise, innovation, and the historical economics concept. The historical approach to economics appears in his scientific works at the time of his work at the European universities in Chernivtsi, Graz and Bonn, as well as in his later work at Harvard University. The paper also studies the rise of his innovation theory, first appearing during his work in Graz, Styria, and its gradual reflection in his professional work. The paper shows how these approaches merge in his economic teaching, which is very specific and includes both purely economic and technological and social aspects.