Joseph Schumpeter and Entrepeneurialism

There’s an excellent, excellent article on the contributions of the economist Joseph Schumpeter to the theory of entrepeneurialism that I’d like to commend to your attention. Here’s a snippet:

The notion of combination stands at the center of Schumpeter’s theory of entrepreneurship. Indeed, he famously defines entrepreneurship as a new combination:

To produce means to combine materials and forces within our reach. To produce other things, or the same things by a different method, means to combine these materials and forces differently… Development [or entrepreneurship] in our sense is then defined by the carrying out of new combinations. (Theory of Economic Development, 65–66; emphasis added)

This quote also shows that Schumpeter sees the whole economic process as a combination. The existing economic situation is a combination; when this is recast into a new combination, you produce an innovation.

Schumpeter also provides the reader of Theory with his famous list of the five main types of innovations: “a new good,” “a new method of production,” “a new market,” “a new source of supply of raw materials,” and “the carrying out of a new organization of any industry” (Theory, 66; emphasis added).

There’s one thought I’d like to leave with with on the subject of entrepeneurial activity. If you combine intellectual property law at the degree of robustness it currently has in the United States, recognize no limits to the ability of the government to regulate economic activity which has the effect of making it impossible to assess the risks posed by regulation, and reduce incentives, you run the risk of reducing the Schumpeterian combination that leads to economic vitality (and jobs!) to nil.

8 comments… add one
  • Sam Link

    I agree unless this argument includes “financial innovation”. The financial sector draws far too many resources for something that in the end really just finds innovative ways to fool people into taking on too much debt. In they end these “innovations” do nothing to improve efficiency or productivity in real industries that produce something people can actually use.

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    By this definition creatives are entrepreneurs par excellence. Been saying that for a while. Of course in our case the IP laws ensure that we are actually creating “new combinations.” (Other creatives get very pissy when we use their old combinations.)

    And our problem isn’t with government regulations (there are none in my business) but rather the dead hand of established businesses stifling creativity by deploying vast numbers of MBA’s and accountants. All those clever number crunchers who think they’re part of the entrepreneurial class but are really nothing but defenders of the status quo.

    Sorry. Ranting a bit. Dealing with publishers this week.

  • And our problem isn’t with government regulations (there are none in my business) ….

    Wut? Nice joke. Maybe you should read what you wrote a bit earlier,

    Of course in our case the IP laws …..

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Steve V:

    Are laws identical to regulations? I understood those were two related but not identical concepts. Isn’t there a difference in kind as well as degree between laws against burglary and a regulation requiring stock traders to file reports with the SEC? Serious question, I’d actually like to know.

  • steve Link

    OT- Inflation or deflation? Interesting Feldstein piece and Thoma response.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/do-deficit-and-inflation-hawks-know-best.html

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/feldstein24/English

    What is the bond market telling us?

    Steve

  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Actually, I’ve looked it up myself since I was curious.

    Regulations are promulgated to allow the enforcement of laws by a government agency.

    A look at enforcement for copyright laws — the ones that govern my business — indicate that enforcement falls entirely on me or other rights holders. In short we have to sue. There is no agency enforcing regulations, no cops to call, there’s just us enforcing our rights under the law.

    Which I believe means my original statement ” . . .our problem isn’t with government regulations (there are none in my business. . .)” is correct. No regulatory agency, no agency law, no regulations, just a libertarian utopia where we each are required to defend our legal rights in court using our own resources.

  • Drew Link

    Heh. Didn’t find the article that excellent, but…

    Long ago I spoke with a PE partner who said, “if you can’t write down on a 3 x 5 card why you like an investment, there’s a problem.” Over time I’ve found that to be true. These things aren’t that complicated. But few solve the value creation code.

    WRT Schump —– Actually, there are very few business models: 1) low cost production, 2) niche marketing (including the high quality model), 3) change the distribution channel (“skip or change the middle man”), 4) high technology (new product). Its a variant, and I think more accurate version of Schump.

    And Sam, that was just pathetic.

  • Long ago I spoke with a PE partner who said, “if you can’t write down on a 3 x 5 card why you like an investment, there’s a problem.”

    He was quoting David Belasco. Belasco said “If you can’t write your idea on the back of your business card, you don’t have a clear idea.”

Leave a Comment