Entrepreneurs “from within”? Schumpeter and the emergence of pure novelty

Abstract The development of a dynamic model of endogenous economic change was a major objective for Schumpeter throughout his academic career. This requires, among other things, explaining the emergence of pure novelty, which Schumpeter never managed to do. As an explanation for this failure, existing literature put forward a methodological tension stemming from Schumpeter’s Walrasian commitment. In this paper, we propose that Schumpeter’s inability to build an endogenous theory of pure novelty is not only the mere logical consequence of his unsuitable methodological approach but also the inevitable outcome of his “theory” of how novelty is generated. We show that he could not depart from an individual and elitist dimension of entrepreneurship and from an energetic and vitalist axiom of social change, which is by nature hardly compatible with endogenous evolution. Furthermore, our revisiting of his last writings shows that, while there have been clear changes in his thinking on the entrepreneur, the “old” Schumpeter remained rooted in an individualistic, elitist, and energetic view of the apparition of pure novelty. These findings have important implications for understanding Schumpeter’s thinking and, in particular, his vision of capitalism, socialism, and economic development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Industrial and Corporate Change
Published
2024-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtae040
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Economic Theory and Institutions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Entrepreneurs “from within”? Schumpeter and the emergence of pure novelty

Julien Pénin, Rémy Guichardaz
5 citations
Industrial and Corporate Change
Economic Theory and Institutions
5.65
article

Entrepreneurs “from within”? Schumpeter and the emergence of pure novelty

Julien Pénin, Rémy Guichardaz
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract The development of a dynamic model of endogenous economic change was a major objective for Schumpeter throughout his academic career. This requires, among other things, explaining the emergence of pure novelty, which Schumpeter never managed to do. As an explanation for this failure, existing literature put forward a methodological tension stemming from Schumpeter’s Walrasian commitment. In this paper, we propose that Schumpeter’s inability to build an endogenous theory of pure novelty is not only the mere logical consequence of his unsuitable methodological approach but also the inevitable outcome of his “theory” of how novelty is generated. We show that he could not depart from an individual and elitist dimension of entrepreneurship and from an energetic and vitalist axiom of social change, which is by nature hardly compatible with endogenous evolution. Furthermore, our revisiting of his last writings shows that, while there have been clear changes in his thinking on the entrepreneur, the “old” Schumpeter remained rooted in an individualistic, elitist, and energetic view of the apparition of pure novelty. These findings have important implications for understanding Schumpeter’s thinking and, in particular, his vision of capitalism, socialism, and economic development.

Industrial and Corporate ChangeVol. 34(4)
Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée (FR), Université de Strasbourg (FR), Université de Lorraine (FR)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Economic Theory and Institutions
5.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.