Say's Conception of The Role of The Entrepreneur by Koolman

Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related
Disciplines
London School of Economics
Say's Conception of the Role of the Entrepreneur

Author(s): G. Koolman
Source: Economica, New Series, Vol. 38, No. 151 (Aug., 1971), pp. 269-286
Published by: Wiley on behalf of London School of Economics and Political Science and Suntory
and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2552843
Accessed: 27-11-2015 00:32 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, Wiley, London School of
Economics and London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Economica.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.226.37.5 on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 00:32:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1971]
Say's Conception of the Role of the Entrepreneur

By G. KOOLMAN
I
In the chapteron "Organizationand Policy"in his recentbook, The
Theory of Economic Development,' Lord Robbins ascribes to the
entrepreneur at leastthreefunctions:uncertainty-bearing;organization
andleadership;andinnovation.In a shortpassagehe goeson to discuss,
with greatfelicity,the problemof identifyingthe entrepreneur and the
polarizationin the treatmentof profitwhichhas occurredin the history
of thought.In the courseof this passageJ-B.Sayreceivesrecognitionas
"thepopularizerof AdamSmith"and as the initiatorof the distinction
betweenentrepreneurialprofit on the one hand, and the return to
capitalor businessprofiton the other.Whatis surprisingin this treat-
ment,however,is the fact that althoughSay is creditedwith a concep-
as an organizerand leaderand not
tion of the role of the entrepreneur
merelyas theproviderof capitalin the Smithiansense,it is Saint-Simon,
and not Say,who is seento be its originator.
Thisis but one exampleof a mistakentendencyon the partof writers
on the historyof economicthoughtto underplaySay's contributions.
Say makesonly a fleetingappearancein most texts on the subject,and
then chieflyfor his "lawof markets"wherehe tendsto occupythe role
of a classicalogre waitingto be slain by the Keynesianknight. Only
rarelyis he givencreditfor his contributionto the theoryof the entre-
preneur.The meagrerecognitionaccordedSayis amplyillustratedby a
perusalof the widely-usedtexts by Cannan,Roll, Taylor, Blaug and
Schumpeter.
AlthoughCannanrecognizedSayas "a versatilegenius"2andcredited
him with the "elevation"of the studyof productionto a majordivision
of the subjectmatterof economics,3he was still treatedas a "popular-
izer"of Smith,4givenlittle space,and his contributionto the theoryof
the entrepreneur was neglected.5For Roll, Saywas againthe "popular-
izer" of Adam Smith and his "most faithfuldisciple":6 and he treats
1 Lord Robbins, The Theory of Economic Development in the History of
Economic Thought,1968, lecture V, section 5. The subject of the present article
was suggested to me by Lord Robbins and is based on a chapter in my doctoral
thesis, supervisedby Lord Robbins to whom I am greatly indebted.
2 E. Cannan, A History of the Theoriesof Productionand Distributionin English
Political Economyfrom 1776-1848, 3rd ed., 1924, p. 46.
3 E. Cannan, A Reviewof Economic Theory,1929, p. 54.
4 Ibid., p. 297.
5 There is some discussion of Say's definition of profit. Ibid., p. 308.
6 E. Roll, A History of EconomicThought,3rd ed., 1954, pp. 202, 318. Certainly
Say is credited with the recognition of utility as a determinantof value, with a
theory of the functions of the entrepreneur (pp. 319-23) and with giving an
emphasis to positive economics; but the treatment he is accorded is sparse and
sketchy, as befits a minor figure.
269
270 ECONOMICA [AUGUST
Say's law as a Ricardian construction, remarking at one point that

Say's dictum "may have been due to James Mill, in the first place".'
Taylor gives Say credit for having produced the most elaborate argu-
ment against the possibility of a general glut, but argues that an
examination of Say's contribution would be a digression because the
same ideas were propounded independently by Ricardo and became an
integral part of his system.2 Blaug, likewise, displays interest in Say
almost exclusively for the law of markets, and remarks that in the first
edition of the Traite d'Economie Politique his formulation of the law
"was little more than an account of exchange in a bartereconomy which
emphasized the identity of sales and purchases", and that its later more
systematic development "stands out clearly" in Mill's Commerce
Defended.3As is to be expected, Say receives a more extended treatment
from Schumpeter who accords him priority for the law of markets and
praises him for realizing the importance of the conception of a triad
of agents-landowners, workmen and capitalists-in the economic
process, and for introducing the notion of a fourth agent, the entre-
preneur, who combines factors of production.4 Schumpeter'streatment
of Say, however, is fragmented. Moreover, he is accused of being his
own worst enemy in terms of exposition, trivializing his insights, reply-
ing to criticism in a desultory manner, and being clumsy and superficial
in his theorizing. The net effect of these commentaries and criticisms
has been to reduce Say's status to that of a minor figure in the history of
economic thought.
It is true that Say's law of markets has been subjected to fairly
intense scrutiny by economists, largely as being a theoretical construc-
tion of "classical economics" ;5 it is only very recently that its historical
origins have been closely examined.6 Little or nothing has been made of
Say's contribution to the theory of the entrepreneur. It is the purpose
of this paper to assess Say's contribution to this subject, and to attempt
in some small measure to correct the gross neglect that Say has suffered
in the various histories of economic thought.
Section II outlines what Say wrote on the concept of the entrepreneur
and the nature of his functions, and Section III examines Say's views
on the related matter of the income attributable to the entrepreneurial
'Ibid., pp. 201-2. This view is derived from M. Dobb, Political Economyand
Capitalism,1937, p. 41.
2 0. H. Taylor, A History of EconomicThought,1960, p. 215.
3 M. Blaug, Ricardian Economics: A Historical Study, 1958, pp. 64-5. It is
stated baldly that Say had a conception of the "entrepreneuras a fourth factor of
production" (p. 154), but nothing is made of this; and despite some discussion of
entrepreneurshipin his later Economic Theoryin Retrospect,2nd ed., 1968, it is
nowhere related to Say.
4 J. A. Schumpeter,History of EconomicAnalysis, 1961, pp. 555, 561, 645.
5 See G. S. Becker and W. J. Baumol, "The Classical Monetary Theory: The
Outcome of the Discussion", Economica,vol. XIX (1952); considerablymodified
and enlarged,reprintedin J. J. Spenglerand W. R. Allen (eds.), Essays in Economic
Thought,1960; and D. Patinkin, Money, Interest and Prices, 2nd ed., 1965, pp.
193-5, 355-65; and the referencescited in both these publications.
6 A. S. Skinner, "Say's Law: Origins and Content", Economica,vol. XXXIV
(1967).
1971] SAY S CONCEPTIONOF THE ROLE OF THE ENTREPRENEUR 271
function. Section IV deals very briefly with the entrepreneur as an

innovator. Finally, in Section V Say's position is compared with that
of contemporary and antecedent writers; the explanations which he
himself offered for his superior treatment compared with that of his
English contemporaries are considered; and an attempt is made to
assess Say's originality.
II
Say made a tri-partite division of the functions to be found in any
process of production: effort, knowledge and the "applications" of the
entrepreneur.1Knowledge of how to do something was considered a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for production. The really
important step was the application of this knowledge to a specific end.2
For this purpose an entrepreneurwas needed. In this way, for Say the
entrepreneur became the principal agent of production. Other opera-
tions were certainly indispensable, but it was the entrepreneurwho gave
effect to them and conferred value on them. He wrote:3
Je vous ferai remarquer que 1'entrepreneurd'industrie est l'agent
principalde la production. Les autres operations sont bien indispen-
sables pour la creation des produits; mais c'est l'entrepreneurqui les
met en oeuvre, qui leur donne une impulsion utile, qui en tire des
valeurs.
For positive activity the entrepreneur would have to command the
necessary resources and organize their appropriate activities. Thus,
given the necessary knowledge,
it was furtherrequisite,that a manufacturershould have been found
possessed of the means of reducingthe knowledgeinto practice; who
should have at first made himself masterof all that was known of that
1J-B. Say, A Treatiseon Political Economy,trs., C. R. Prinsep, 1821; reprinted

Philadelphia,1880 (and henceforthreferredto as Treatise),pp. 79-82. There were
five editions of the Traite'during Say's lifetime. The first appearedin 1803. It was
revised substantiallyfor the second edition of 1814, and an Epitomedes Principes
Fondamentauxde l'EconomiePolitiquewas added. Two further editions followed
in 1817 and 1819, and a furthermajor revision took place with the fifth edition of
1826. It was the fourth edition which was translated by Prinsep. It had a much
greaterinfluencein the United States than in Britain.
There is a similarargumentin Say's other major work, CoursCompletd'Econo-
mie PolitiquePratique,1st ed., 1828; 2nd ed., 1840; 3rd ed., 1852, to which refer-
ences will be made as Cours;in this instance, Cours,vol. I, p. 95.
2 Cours, vol. I, p. 97. Destutt de Tracy also spoke of the "applications" of
the entrepreneursstanding alongside the theory of the men of science and the
execution of the labourers; but "the man of science and the workman are in the
pay of the undertaker... it is not sufficient to know how to aid an enterprize
with the head or the hands; there must first be an enterprize;and he who under-
takes it, is necessarily the person who chooses, employs, and pays those who
co-operate". A. L. Comte Destutt de Tracy, A Treatise on Political Economy,
trans., Georgetown, D.C., 1817 (the French original appeared in print only in
1823), pp. 36, 39-40.
3 Cours, vol. I, p. 97.
particularbranch of industry, and afterwardshave accumulated,or

procuredthe requisite capital, collected artificersand labourers, and
assignedto each his respectiveoccupation.'
Say argued that although a country might be deficient in the supply of
"knowledge", this was not a serious matter since "men of science" had
an over-riding interest in the diffusion of their knowledge and hence
knowledge could be obtained from abroad if necessary. But this was
not the case with the "other two operations of industry", for "there is
no way of dispensing with ... the art of applying the knowledge of
man to the supply of his wants . . . and the skill of execution ... so that
a country well stocked with intelligent merchants, manufacturers and
agriculturalistshas more powerful means of attaining prosperity, than
one devoted chiefly to the pursuit of the arts and sciences". He then
argued that the commercial success of Britain and her great wealth were
due to the "wonderful practical skill of her adventurers in the use-
ful application of knowledge" and to the labouring skills of her work-
men.2
Say's division of functions was essentially analytic since he recognized
that the three functions could be combined in one person.3 Conse-
quently the entrepreneur was not necessarily a member of a distinct
social class: he was the performer of a distinct economic function. The
exact specification of this function was elaborated by Say in the succes-
sive editions of the Traite, and in his other writings. To draw a picture
of the entrepreneuras Say saw him therefore requires considerable care,
and it depends upon a collation of his views taken from a number of
different sources. Some points, however, are sufficientlywell established
to require little elaboration. Thus in Say's schema it is shown how the
entrepreneur hired the services of the other productive agents, land,
labour and, in most cases capital, in return for the payment of rent,
wages and interest, and how he combined them in order to meet the
demands of final consumers. On this view, entrepreneurs were pure
intermediaries in the productive process. They established claims on
those productive services which they considered necessary for the
production of the commodities the demand for which they were
attempting to satisfy. The demand by the entrepreneurs was seen
as one of the forces which operated to determine the value of pro-
ductive services. On the other hand, the supply of the various
1 Treatise, p. 82. Say defined an industrial undertaking as "an enterprise in

which a man decides what part of the materialand of the laws of the physical and
moral world he is able to apply to the production of a useful thing", in Catechism
of Political Economy,or Familiar Conversationson the Mannerin which Wealthis
Produced,Distributedand Consumed,trans., J. Richter, 1816. This work is hence-
forth referredto as Catechism.
2 Treatise,pp. 82-3.
3 Say stipulated that the entrepreneurialfunction existed irrespective of the
social structure: Cours, vol. I, p. 96. The Physiocrats regarded a situation in
which one person combined a number of separate functions such as those of
proprietor,farmerand labourer, as an indication of stagnation.
1971] SAY'S CONCEPTIONOF THE ROLE OF THE ENTREPRENEUR 273
productive services was determined by a variety of motives. Thus Say

wrote:'
Les entrepreneursd'industriene sont, pour ainsi dire, que des inter-
mediaires qui reclament les services productifs necessaires pour tel
produit en proportion de la demande qu'on fait de ce produit. Le
cultivateur,le manufacturierou le negociant, comparentperpetuelle-
ment le prix que le consommateurveut et peut mettre 'atelle ou telle
marchandise,avec les frais qui seront necessaires pour qu'elle soit
produite; s'ils en decident la production ils etablissent une demande
de tous les servicesproductifsqui devronty concourir,et fournissent
ainsi une des bases de la valeur de ces services. D'un autre cote, les
agens de la production, hommes et choses, terres, capitaux, ou gens
industrieux, s'offrent plus ou moins, suivant divers motifs... et
forment ainsi l'autre base de la valeur qui s'etablit pour ces memes
services.
The entrepreneur,therefore, occupied a central role in the economy. He
was the linchpin, holding together landlord and capitalist, technician
and labourer, producer and consumer. He was the organizer of produc-
tion, and in that capacity the intermediary between all the agents of
production, and between all these and the final consumers; he was the
centre of a web of relationships, and was able to profit from his know-
ledge and the ignorance of others.2 Say's schema was much more
revealing than that of his predecessors, the Physiocrats, who had
conceived of the process of exchange as one based on socio-economic
classes rather than on individuals.
The entrepreneurwas occupied both on the demand and the supply
sides of the market equation. On the demand side, "he is called upon
to estimate, with tolerable accuracy, the importance of the specific
product, the probable amount of demand", whilst on the supply side
his concern was with the means of production: "at one time he must
employ a great number of hands; at another, buy or order the raw
material, collect labourers ... and give at all times a rigid attention
to order and economy".3 However, the entrepreneurial function was
something more than "the art of superintendenceand administration",4
although at one point Say seems to be asserting that this is all there is
to it; for he goes on to make clear that there are risks and uncertainties
attendant on the process of production and that these limit the supply
of successful enterprise. Hence Say is misinterpretedwhen, as historians
have done in the past, stress is placed on the identification of the
co-ordinating activity of entrepreneurs as being his sole contribution
to the theory of the entrepreneur. In any enterprise activity "there is
1 Traite'd'EconomiePolitique, 5th ed., Paris, 1826, vol. II, p. 229. Cf. Treatise,
p. 315.
2 "L'intermediaireentre toutes les classes de production, et entre ceux-ci et le
consommateur.I1administrel'oeuvre de la production;il est le centrede plusieurs
rapports." Traite',vol. II, p. 229. Cf. Treatise,p. 332.
4 Ibid., p. 331.
an abundanceof obstacles to be surmounted, of anxieties to be repressed,

of misfortunes to be repaired, and of expedients to be devised ... [and]
there is always a degree of risk attending such undertakings".' The
entrepreneur,as the provider of capital, was at risk to the extent of his
capital commitment, but also his reputation was at stake in the success
or failure of his enterprise. The same argument was used elsewhere by
Say. Some risk accompanied every industrial enterprise, and even an
able entrepreneur might lose the capital he has committed, and to a
certain extent his reputation for trustworthiness. In Say's own words :2
"Quelque risque accompagne toujours les entreprises d'industrie,
meme celles qui sont le mieux conduites. L'entrepreneurpeut, sans qu'il
y ait de sa faute, y compromettre sa fortune et, jusqu'a un certain point,
son honneur."
These elements, risk-bearing and the consequent uncertainty, must
not be forgotten when considering the entrepreneurial function as a
mediating one in the limited, purely static situations, envisaged in the
formal definitions of the entrepreneur provided by Say. These defini-
tions appear in the Catechism and the Epitome. In the former, the
entrepreneuris defined as he who
unites all ... means of production-the labour of the one, the capital
or land of the others-and who findsin the value of the productswhich
results from them the re-establishmentof the entire capital that he
employs, and the value of the wages, the interestand the rent which he
pays, as well as the profitsbelongingto himself.3
In the latter it is argued that the entrepreneurcontributes to production
by applying to it acquired knowledge, the service of capital and the
services of the natural agents :4 "Entrepreneursd'industrie: Ils concour-
ent 'ala production en appliquant les connaissances acquises, le service
des capitaux et celui des agens naturels, a la confection des produits
auxquels les hommes attachent une valeur." That these definitions are
not, in themselves, adequate to convey the full appreciation of the
entrepreneurialrole is made abundantly clear in the definitive edition
of the Traite. After having remarkedon the importance of "knowledge"
in the process of production, Say went on to write that someone else,
the entrepreneur,benefits from this knowledge, by creating on his own
I Ibid., p. 331. The point was neatly made by Destutt de Tracy, in the mannerof
Cantillon. The entrepreneurwas subject to "incertitude";the "hireling" on the
other hand "always receives the price agreed on, whateverhappens". The income
of the entrepreneur,his "profits",represent"the price of his labour, the interest
of his funds, and the indemnificationfor the risks he has run", but he does not
necessarilyreceive such profits: this depends on the degreeof success attendinghis
efforts. It would be improper therefore to regard his income as wages "since no
one has promisedhim anything".Destutt de Tracy, Treatiseon Political Economy,
pp. 40-1.
2 Cours,vol. II, p. 37.
3 Catechism,pp. 28-9.
4 Traite',vol. III, p. 286.
account, at his own risk and for his own profit a product which will
have value in the market:1
Un autre.profit de ces connaissancespour creer des produits utiles.
C'est I'agriculteur,le manufacturierou le commercant;ou, pour les
designer par une denomination commune 'a tous les trois, c'est
1'entrepreneurd'industrie, celui qui entreprend de creer pour son
compte, a son profitet 'ases risques,un produitquelconque.
Besides giving a general picture of the large-scale entrepreneur, Say
also analysed the role of the person working on his own account. "When
a workman carries on an enterprise on his own account, as the knife-
grinder in the streets, he is both workman and undertaker."2 Here it
was argued that the productive services were acquired by the entre-
preneur under contract-he purchased or hired them3-and he used
them in his own productive enterprise and became the owner of the
finished products. In this way production was undertaken by the
entrepreneur at his own behest and at his own risk: "II n'en est pas
moins entrepreneur, puisqu'il produit pour son compte, et que son
profit depend de la valeur du produit qui resulte de ses soins."4 This
view of the entrepreneur as the sole trader, owning and organizing a
business, was a description of the most typical business unit at the time
when he was writing. Say agreed, then, with the view of Cantillon that
"un peintre, un statuaire du premier ordre, qui peuvent etre consideres
comme entrepreneurs,puisqu'ils agissent pour leur propre compte .. ..u
Say devoted considerable space to the qualities a successful entre-
preneur would display. The prime quality was that of judgment. The
entrepreneurwas continually having to estimate the needs of the market
and the means by which they could be met. In this connection the
practical knowledge and the labouring skills necessarily associated
with production were inessential to the entrepreneur: what he had to
possess was an unerring market sense, or else he was likely to produce
at great expense something that was valueless. Say wrote :6
C'est lui qui juge des besoins et surtout des moyens de les satisfaire;
et qui compare le but avec ces.moyens; aussi, sa principale qualite
est-elle le jugement. Personnellementil peut se passer de science, en
faisentun judicieuxemploide celle des autres; il peut eviter de mettre
la main 'al'oeuvreen se servantdes mains d'autrui; mais il ne saurait
se passer de jugement; car alors il pourraitfaire a grandsfrais ce qui
n'aurait aucune valeur.
Say reasoned that in the same line of activity some entrepreneurswould
have this essential quality and would be successful, whilst others would
1 Ibid., vol. I, p. 51.
2
Catechism,p. 15.
3 Cours,vol. I, p. 508.
4 Ibid., vol. II, p. 34.
5 Ibid., vol. II, p. 40. This was the sort of situation which the English economists
at this period also instanced; but it was the only type of situation they envisaged.
6 Cours,vol. I, pp. 97-8.
not and would be ruined: "Dans le meme genre d'industrie, un entre-

preneur qui a du jugement, de l'activite de l'ordre et des connaissances,
fait sa fortune, tandis qu'un autres, qui n'a pas les memes qualites, ou
qui rencontre des circonstances trop contraires, se ruine." I In addition,
since the entrepreneurwas placed in a position of uncertainty, it was
essential that he should be firm of purpose, act with constancy and
generally possess that "judicious courage which can envisage all man-
ner of risks and an imperturbable sang-froid which permits one to use
all means of escaping them".2 Entrepreneursshould possess
la constance qui fait surmonterles contrarietesdont la vie est semee;
la fermeteau moyen de laquelleun homme consulte les besoins de son
entreprise, plutot que ses affections et ses ressentiments, dedaigne
la perversite des autres plutot qu'il ne s'en irrite, et repousse les
conseils de la crainte aussi bien que ceux de la temerite. . . il faut
savoir bravercette espece d'incertitudequi enveloppel'issue de toutes
les entrepriseshumaines... je veux qu'on ait une audace judicieuse
qui sache envisagertous les risques,et un sangfroidimperturbablequi
laisse choisirtous les moyens d'y echapper.3
Say's most notable achievement in his treatment of the entrepreneur
was the explicit distinction he introduced between the supply-of-
capital function and the enterprise function. This was a considerable
step forward as is clear when one considers the views on this subject of
his predecessors,Turgot and Garnier, and the almost total identification
of the entrepreneur and the capitalist by his English contemporaries.
To Say it was essential to make this distinction, since in his view it was
the entrepreneurwho was the active agent in production, and who from
his pivotal position in the productive process exercised the most impor-
tant influence on the distribution of wealth. This was not the role of
the capitalist, nor, for that matter, that of the landowner, or of the
labourer. As Say put it:4
Ce ne sont, convenons-en,ni la part du proprietairefoncier, ni la part
du capitaliste,ni celle de l'ouvrier, sur quelques, regles qu'il plaise 'a
des theoriciens abstraite de les etablir, qui exercent la plus notable
influencesur la distributiondes richesses. C'est la capacite des entre-
preneursd'industrie... I1convenaitdonc, ce me semble, de distinguer
avec soin la capacite de l'entrepreneurd'industriede la capacite du
capitaliste,meme lorsque ces deux capacites se trouvent reunies dans
la meme individu. La derniere,celle du capitaliste,ne peut eprouver
oue des faibles variations dans la Dart au'elle obtient des valeurs
1 Examen Critiquedu Discours de M. McCulloch sur l'EconomiePolitique, in
Oeuvres Diverses de J-B Say, vol. 12 of the Collection des Economistes, Paris,
1848, pp. 274-5.
2 Cours, vol. I, p. 303, quoted from B. F. Hoselitz, "The Early History of
EntrepreneurialTheory", Explorationsin Entrepreneurial History, vol. III, (1951),
and reprintedin J. J. Spenglerand W. R. Allen (eds.), Essays in EconomicThouight
1960, p. 254. Hoselitz's article is an invaluablesource of informationon earlycon-
ceptions of the role of the entrepreneur.
3 Cours,vol. I, p. 301.
4 Examen Critiquedu Discours de M. McCulloch ... pp. 274-5.
produites.Celle de 1'entrepreneuren eprouve de considerables.Voila

les veritespratiquesqui sont d'une grandeutilite pour les particuliers.
It was admitted that the entrepreneur would necessarily employ
capital.' It was not sufficient for him just to possess these talents and
judgment which characterizedhis industry, for these had to be exercised
upon something. In other words, besides these necessary qualities the
entrepreneurhad to possess "the materials on which he would employ
his industry, and the indispensable instruments to carry it into effect.
All these things have a value previously acquired, and this value is
called capital."2 In most cases the entrepreneurwould employ his own
capital, for he would rarely be able to borrow the whole of his funds
from "strangers".3 Clearly the fact that it was necessary for the entre-
preneur to possess the necessary qualities for the execution of his
functions and that it was "commonly requisite for the adventurer
himself to provide the necessary funds" served to "shut out a great
many competitors".4 Capital funds, however, might not be provided
by the entrepreneurhimself. But whether or not the enterprise was self-
financed was irrelevant to the exercise of the entrepreneurial activity
of profit-making. The difficulty facing the entrepreneur was different
from that facing the capitalist, for the entrepreneur had to produce
commodities the value of which would cover the cost of production,
including the cost of the capital employed. From the moment the
commodity was worth as much as it cost to produce, its production
became advantageous, for it paid for all the costs of the productive
services:5
Ce qui fait la difficultede 1'entrepreneur,c'est de creer des produits
qui vaillent autant ou plus que leurs frais de production.Du moment
qu'ils valent autant, la productionest advantageuse;elle paie tous les
servicesproductifset par consequenttous les profits,les revenuesdes
producteurs.
III
Say distinguished three elements in the income of the entrepreneur.
These elements reflected the three factors affecting the supply of
entrepreneurial services, and which may be summarized as follows:
(a) the necessity of having the moral qualifications for this type of work;
(b) the necessity for ensuring that the enterprise has the capital it
requires: and (c) undertaking the risks and hazards associated with the
1 The undertaker"alreadyhas funds, with which he can meet the first expenses
of establishmentand supplies, and pay wages till the moment of the first returns".
Destutt de Tracy, Treatiseon Political Economy,p. 40.
2 Catechism,p. 16.
3 The supposition behind this argument appears to be the same as that put
forward by Reder in 1947, that the entrepreneurwould not wish to jeopardize
the extent of his control of the enterpriseby having too great a recourseto outside
funds. M. W. Reder, "A Reconsiderationof the MarginalProductivityTheory",
Journalof Political Economy,vol. 55 (1947). Cf. Treatise,p. 330, first paragraph.
4 Treatise, p. 330.
5 Traite,vol. III, p. 287.
enterprise, and the consequent uncertainty as to what profits would be

made.1 Appropriate to these three factors were three categories of
income: a wage payment appropriateto the category of labour supplied;
an interest payment for the capital supplied, although this was explicitly
recognized to be a payment in respect of the capitalist function; and a
premium for risk-bearing.
Since Say emphasized the co-ordinating function of the entrepreneur,
it is not surprising that he also emphasized the wage-component of his
income. Even when huge commercial enterprises were operated, the
primary source of entrepreneurialincome was not profit as a premium
for risk-bearingbut wages as a compensation for the highly skilled and
scarce category of labour supplied. As Say wrote :2
All branchesof industrydo not requirean equal degreeof capacityand
knowledge.A farmerwho adventuresin tillageis not expectedto have
such extensiveknowledgeas a merchant,who adventuresin trade with
distant countries... If the science requisiteto make a good farmeris
more common than that which can make a good merchant,it is not
surprisingthat the labour of the formeris but poorly paid, in compari-
son with that of the latter.
However, since it was impossible to conduct an enterprise without the
employment of capital, the income of the entrepreneur generally
included the profits of his capital as well as those of his efforts. The
capital employed might, of course, be borrowed; but whichever was the
case, the profit resulting from its use was gained by the entrepreneur
since he was the person who had put himself at risk. The nature of the
risk, however, was not made fully clear by Say. He recognized that the
ultimate risk was borne by the capitalist: "He loses if he has anything
to lose-where the value of the products he has created is not sufficient
-or if he has nothing, those lose who have given him their confidence."3
Any surplus, however, apparently accrued to the entrepreneur,though
eventually it would be competed away: "Si les produits valent plus que
les frais de production c'est un surcroit de profit pour l'entrepreneur,
surcroit qui lui est ordinairement enleve par la concurrence."4 What
appeared to be implied in all this was that while the entrepreneurwas
always, to a certain extent, a capitalist, not all capitalists need be
actively engaged in an enterprise.5 The capitalists might merely make
advances to entrepreneursfor which they would receive a fixed payment
of interest. In these circumstances it is possible to see how the entre-
1 Cours,vol. II, pp. 35-8; esp., p. 37.
2
Treatise,p. 331. Cf. Cours,vol. II, pp. 38-9.
3 Catechism,p. 29.
4 Traite',vol. III, p. 287. This paragraph, which appears in the Epitome, was
only added in the fifth edition.
5 Destutt de Tracy distinguished idle from active capitalists. The former "do
not direct any productivelabour", the latter "comprehendsall the undertakersof
any kind of industry whatsoever", and they might also borrow funds from idle
capitalists. He concluded: "The undertakersof industry are really the heart of
the body politic, and their capitals are its blood." Treatiseon Political Economy,
pp. 135-6, 168-71.
preneur was exposed to risk of loss. His own income was a residual,
and it might be large or small depending on the degree of success
attending the enterprise; and besides this, the entrepreneur'sown stake
in the enterprise was in jeopardy:1
C'est [l'entrepreneurd'industrie]qui est chargede tous les risquesde la
production.I1 n'en est pas ainsi des agents secondairesqu'il emploie.
Un commis, un ouvrierregoiventleur traitement,leur salaire, soit que
1'entreprisegagne ou bien qu'elle perde. Le capitaliste,lui-meme,qui
fait 'aun entrepreneurdes avances,en touche les interetsdans tous les
cas; mais si le produit ne rend pas ses frais de production, l'entre-
preneurest oblige de tirer ce deficitde sa bourse; et ce deficit l'expose
a des pertesd'autrantplus graves,que le succesest pour lui accompagne
de plus gros profits...
Clearly the greater the capital requirement, the greater were the risks
involved. This would place a premium on entrepreneurialjudgment,
and the greater the complexity of the organization the smaller would
be the supply of appropriate entrepreneurial services. In this way a
''monopolistic situation" would be conferred on the entrepreneursand
they would benefit accordingly. A considerable degree of sophistication
was displayed by Say in describingthis situation :2
La reunion des qualites et des talents qui sont necessaires pour faire
prosperer, et pour soutenir seulement une entreprise industrielle,
etablit une espece de monopole en faveur des hommes qui sont en etat
de la concevoir,de la formeret de la conduire.Ceux qui manquentde
prudenceet de lumieres,ne font pas longtempsconcurrence'aceux qui
en sont pourvus. Telles sont les causes qui etablissent,pour les entre-
preneurs,des profitsindependantsde leurs capitaux,et fort superieurs
au salaired'un simple commis en chef, qui ne court aucun risquepour
son compte, touche son traitement dans toutes les suppositions, et
ne hazardni ses fonds, ni sa reputation,en cas de mauvaisefortune.
Here we have a further very important distinction, that between the
administrative head of an enterprise-the "simple commis en chef"-
and the entrepreneurproper who is prepared to risk his own funds and
reputation in the enterprise.Although the former would be an organizer
and decision-taker, this would also be true of the latter, who in addition
would simultaneously be part-capitalist.
It is not really clear whether Say regarded the entrepreneur as a
separate factor of production. If, as is probable, he did not regard the
entrepreneur as such, there were only three factors of production.
The function of the entrepreneur was to combine their services as
productively as possible; and this function was of crucial importance.
Hence the entrepreneur was necessarily classified as a category of
labour; but in most cases he was a capitalist as well since it was impos-
Cours,vol. II, p. 37.
'-
2
Commentairesur le Cours d'tconomie Politique d'Henri Storch, in Oeuvres
Diverses de J-B Say, p. 303.
sible to conduct an enterprise without capital. However, a clear

distinction was made between the enterprise function and the supply-
of-capital function, and this permitted the very important distinction to
be made between the earnings of the entrepreneurand the remuneration
of capital, a distinction which tended to elude English economists.
Thus'
Comme il est impossiblede conduireune entrepriseindustriellesans y
employer un capital, les profits qu'y fait l'entrepreneurcomprennent
ordinnairementles profits de son industrie et ceux de son capital.
Une portion de ce capital lui appartientpresque toujours en propre;
une autreportion est fort souvent empruntee;dans tous les cas, que le
capital soit emprunteou non, le profit qui resulte du service qu'on en
retire,est gagnepar l'entrepreneur,puisqu'ilsa pris a son comptetoutes
les chances, bonnes et mauvaises,de la production.
Say recognized that this distinction was a fine one, and showed that any
enterprise was a complex of different groups which co-operated with
one another, each group making its own contributions and receiving its
own rewards:2
Cette distinction fort delicate est neanmoins tres reelle; car dans les
entreprisesoiuplusieurspersonnessont interessees,les unes pour leur
travail,les autrespour leurs capitaux,chacunefait valoir les avantages
que son contingentapporte'al'entreprise.Les hommes memelorsqu'ils
n'ont pas analyse leurs droits dans leur detail, savent fort bien les
reclamerdans toute leur etendue.
Say also grasped the point intuitively that if the profits of capital
were proportional to the employment of capital and if wages were
received under contracts of service, under static conditions there
would be no theoretical justification for a different category of income
to be received by entrepreneursas a result of the successful outcome of
their enterprise activity. This recognition explains Say's insistence on
the risks attached to an enterprise ("les vicissitudes du commerce,
l'influence de la paix, de la guerre et des mauvaises lois" 3) and on the
need for the entrepreneur continually to exercise his judgment when
confronted by changing circumstances. The entrepreneur undertook
the exceptional tasks of organizing and directing his enterprisein which
tasks he would be aided by other managers; additionally, he was called
upon to estimate costs, conjecture the likely revenues from sales, and
evaluate risks. In Say's words :4
Un entrepreneurd'industrie ... est celui qui, a ses perils et risques,
entreprendde fournir a la societe les produits dont elle a besoin. I1
apprecieles frais de productionque necessiteraun produit; il prejuge
la valeur qu'il aura etant termine; il rassemble tous les elements
d'une entreprise,en compose l'administrationet la regime.Commeil a
1 Traite',vol. II, p. 269.
2
Ibid., p. 270.
3 Commentairesur Le Coursd'tconomie Politiqued'Henri Storch, p. 303.
4 Ibid.
perpetuellementdes achats et des ventes a faire, des conventions de

toutes sortes 'a conclure, il doit connaitre les hommes et les affaires,
evaluerles risques...
IV
There are weaknesses in Say's treatment of the role of the entre-
preneur. There is, for instance, very little investigation of the possible
relationship between the activities of the entrepreneurand the processes
of capital accumulation and investment; and there is little insistence on
the innovating role of the entrepreneur.' However, although the
entrepreneurwas seen primarily in his role of co-ordinator, Say did not
envisage his activity solely as a superior form of labour effort; for he did
acknowledge that the income of the entrepreneurmight also be derived
from the exploitation of an innovation. Say argued that new methods
of working must be introduced, and that, if the entrepreneurwas not
the first in the field as an inventor, then the inventions of others should
be copied as quickly as possible.2 In speaking of the "man of science"
Say wrote: "Sometimes a manufacturerdiscovers a process, calculated
either to introduce a new product, to increase the beauty of an old one,
or to produce with greater economy. . ." 3; and then the entrepreneur
would gain a monopoly profit for the short period during which the
innovation remained a secret. That this was desirable was implicit in
Say's argument, since it ensured that economic progress would be more
rapid and more diversified than otherwise.4 It was also clear that the
inventor need not be the person to exploit the invention, for this was
seen to be a task more appropriate to the entrepreneur.5
V
In contrast to Say, his English contemporaries, the "school of
Ricardo", almost completely neglected the entrepreneur. Their engine
of analysis, articulated on the basis of the interactions of capitalists,
landowners' and labourers conceived largely as macro-economic
groups, found no place for a distinction either between profits and
interest or between entrepreneurs and capitalists; and it provided no
scope for an analysis of the behaviour and constitution of business units.
' The latter point has been seen to be the most serious weakness in Say's
treatmentof the entrepreneur.A. H. Cole, "An Approach to the Study of Entre-
preneurship",Journalof EconomicHistory, vol. VI (1946); reprintedin F. C. Lane
and J. C. Riemersma(eds.), Enterpriseand Secular Change, 1953, esp. pp. 182-3.
2 Cours,vol. I, pp. 296-8.
3 Treatise, p. 329.
4 Ibid., pp. 83-4.
5 Ibid., p. 329. This was an implicit recognition of the now well-established
opinion that a "man of science" has a limited capacity as a practicalbusinessman.
This view is discussed in J. Jewkes, D. Sawers and R. Stillerman, The Sources of
Invention,p. 95.
4
Only later did these subjects begin to receive due recognition at the
hands of Ricardian critics,' clearly prompted by the writings of Say.2
The English classical writers were largely uninterested in Say whom
they regarded primarily as a popularizer of Adam Smith.3 For this
faulty interpretation Say was himself partly to blame:"
Many principlesstrictlycorrect had often been advancedprior to the
time of Dr. Smith; he, however, was the first author who established
their truth. Nor is this all. He has furnished us, also, with the true
method of detectingerrors... The work of Dr. Smith is a succession
of demonstrationswhichhas elevatedmany propositionsto the rankof
indisputableprinciples, and plunged a still greater numberinto that
imaginarygulph, in which extravaganthypothesesand vague opinions
for a certainperiod struggle,before being forever swallowedup.
The first edition of the Traite certainly bore the marks of Smith's
influence; but later editions represented substantial revisions, and Say
stands as a major writer in his own right. It is all the more surprising,
therefore, that Robbins should select Saint-Simon as the original
exponent of the idea of the entrepreneur as the organizer of business
activities. The passage in The Organiser5to which the reader is referred
for elucidation contrasts a list of men of proven talents, including those
who excel in various branches of the arts, with another of those who
represent "privilege". There is very little else in this passage, and there
is nothing in it of the analysis that appeared in Say's work, which in
any case appeared well before 1819 when The Organiserwas published.
Why was it that Say was able to write so intelligently about the
entrepreneur whilst the acknowledged leaders of economic thought
neglected the concept?
It has been said that Say's work "grew from purely French sources,
if we consider Cantillon as a French economist. It is the Cantillon-
Turgot tradition which he carried on and from which he could have
develoDed. . . all the main features of his analysis .. .".6 Further, it is
I Systematiccriticism was developed by Samuel Read in his Political Economy,
Edinburgh, 1829, esp. pp. 243-5, 263-72, 310-15; by George Poulett Scrope in
his Principles of Political Economy, 1833; and by Sir George Ramsay in his
Essay on the Distributionof Wealth,1836, esp. pp. 78-83, 217-19.
2 Thus Nassau Senior introduced the term "entrepreneur"into the English
literaturein his consideration of the definitionsprovided by Say and von Storch.
See the appendix, "On Certain Terms which are peculiarly liable to be used
ambiguously in Political Economy", to Richard Whately, Elements of Logic,
1826. In the same year Thomas Tooke suggested that Say's terms "profits in-
dustriels" and "profits de capitaux" might be adopted by "our economists...
with advantage". See the first section of his Considerationson the State of the
Currency.Ten years later Sir George Ramsay made explicit referenceto the work
of Say, contrastingit favourablywith that of EnglishwritersEssay on the Distribu-
tion of Wealth,pp. 78, 208n.
3 J. R. McCulloch, The Literatureof Political Economy, 1845; reprinted 1938,
pp. 21-2.
4 Treatise,pp. xxxviii-xxxix.
5 The relevant passage from The Organiser, 1819, is reprinted in F. M. H.
Markham (ed.), Henri Comte de Saint-Simon: Selected Writings,Oxford, 1952,
pp. 72-3.
6
J. A. Schumpeter,History of EconomicAnialysis,p. 492.
generally agreed that the first systematic conception of the role of the
entrepreneur is to be found in Richard Cantillon's Essal, with its
distinction between those whose incomes are certain and those whose
incomes are uncertain. In Cantillon's view the active groups in society
could'
be dividedinto two classes,Undertakersand Hired People; and ... all
the Undertakersare as it were on unfixed wages and the others on
wages fixed so long as they receive them though their functions and
ranksmay be very unequal.The generalwho has his pay, the Courtier
his pension and the Domestic servantwho has wages all fall into this
last class. All the rest are Undertakers,whether they set up with a
capital to conduct their enterprise,or are Undertakersof their own
labour without capital, and they may be regardedas living at uncer-
tainty,....
To what extent would it be valid to infer that Say was influenced by the
work of Cantillon whereas his English contemporaries were not? For
Cantillon an entrepreneurwas not a capitalist first and foremost, nor
was he necessarily an employer. He might be either of these; but
essentially he was an undertakerin uncertainty, and a key figure on the
economic scene, because "the circulation and exchange of goods and
merchandize as well as their production are carried on ... by Under-
takers, and at a risk".2 The crucial distinction Cantillon made was
between those who were prepared to accept uncertainty and those who
contracted out of it for fixed rates of return. But this was not the kind
of analysis offered by Say. Certainly Say spoke of risk and uncertainty,
but Cantillon's sharp distinction was not made by him. In fact there is
no overt indication that Say directly knew Cantillon's work.
Smith, on the other hand, referred directly to Cantillon's Essai, and
it was plagiarized by both Postlethwayt and Harris.3It must have been
as well known to English writers as it was to Say, who would probably
have learnt of it from the works of Quesnay and the other Physiocrats,
as well as from Turgot or from Garnier.4 But the original Cantillon
formulation was lost sight of in Physiocratic writings.5 And there is no
textual evidence of any connecting links between what Cantillon wrote
on the nature of the entrepreneurand what Say wrote. Cantillon made
no reference to the entrepreneur as the planner and organizer of a
1 R. Cantillon, Essai sur la Nature du Commerceen General,ed. and trans., H.
Higgs, 1931, p. 55.
2
Ibid., p. 47.
3 M. Postlethwayt, The UniversalDictionary of Trade and Commerce,2 vols.,
1751-55; Joseph Harris, An Essay UponMoney and Coins, 1757-58.
4 Germain Garnier was the translator of Smith's Wealth of Nations, and he
published, anonymously, in 1796 a small volume entitled Abrege elementairede
l'economiepolitique,which was strongly coloured by Cantillon's work and which
repeatedverbatim passages from the Essai.
5 The classical figure of the capitalist-employeremerged gradually as a result
of the efforts of the Abbe Baudeau (PremiereIntroductiona la PhilosophieEcono-
mique,Paris, 1771; reprintedin E. Daire (ed.), Physiocrates,Paris, 1846) in partic-
ular, and later of Turgot and Adam Smith.
productive enterprise or as a supervisor of the agents of production. In

these respects Say's ideas were much closer to those of the Physiocrats,
in particular to those of the Abbe Baudeau and Turgot, who had
included these elements in their expositions. However, Say was generally
opposed to Physiocratic ideas, and this opposition manifested itself in
the development of a subjectivetheory of value. It is doubtful, therefore,
whether his own formulations can be traced directly to his predecessors.
As his own ideas developed, Say was most concerned about the need
to distinguish enterpriseand capital as separate elements in the product-
ive process-a distinction which his English contemporaries were quite
unable to make. The differences,then, between his own ideas and those
of his predecessors and contemporaries were sufficiently marked for us
to regard his ideas as markedly original.
Say himself gave two reasons for the superiority of his treatment.
The first point was that English writers had an insufficiently sophisti-
cated terminology, and this deficiency was traced back to linguistic
poverty. He wrote:1
Smith is greatlyembarrassedby his neglect of the distinctionbetween
the profits of superintendencyand those of capital. He confounds
them under the generalheadingof profits of stock and all his sagacity
and acutenesshave scarcelybeen sufficientto expoundthe causeswhich
influence their fluctuations. And no wonder he found himself thus
perplexed; their value is regulated upon entirely differentprinciples.
The profits of labour depend upon the skill, activity,judgement,etc.,
exerted; those of capital on the abundanceor scarcity of capital, the
securityof the investment,etc.
In later editions Say was able to praise Thomas Tooke who had fully
grasped the significance of this point :2
M. ThomasTooke, celui des ecrivainsanglaisqui a analyseavec le plus
de sagaciteles causesde la variationdes prix,l'a fort biensenti. 'M. Say',
dit il dans une publicationrecente, 'distinguece qu'il appelle "profits
industrielsdes profits des capitaux",et nos 6conomistesgagneraienta
adoptercette classification.'
Later both Sir George Ramsay and John Stuart Mill were to make the
same point. "French economists", the latter wrote, "enjoy a great
advantage in being able to speak currently of 'les profits de l'entre-
preneur'."3
According to Say the English had no word equivalent to the French
word "entrepreneur",though Smith himself had in fact used the word
"undertaker".4Moreover, other terms in current use such as "master",
"speculator" and "projector" had an analogous meaning. But there
2
Traite, vol. II, p. 235n. Tooke made this point in his Considerationson the
State of the Currency,1826, p. 15.
3 J. S. Mill, Principlesof Political Economy, 1848; Ashley's 1909 ed., reprinted
1965, p. 406; cf. Sir George Ramsay, Essay on the Distributionof Wealth,p. 79.
4 E.g., Smith, Wealthof Nations, Cannan's ed., reprinted1961, vol. I, p. 54.
1971] SAY'S CONCEPTIONOF THE ROLE OF THE ENTEPRENEUR 285
was no agreed terminology, and Say's translator, Prinsep, decided to

use the term "adventurer" because, as he explained, the term "entre-
preneur" was-"difficult to render into English".1 The point was em-
phasized by Say in his comparison of the English and Italian languages,
for the latter had no less than four words equivalent in meaning to
entrepreneur: imprenditore, impresario, intraprenditore and intra-
prensore. In sum, Say wrote:2
Les Anglais n'ont point de mot pour rendre celui d'entrepreneur
d'industrie;ce qui les a peut-etre empeches de distinguer dans les
op6rationsindustrielles,le service que rend le capital, du service que
rend, par sa capacite et son talent, celui qui emploie le capital; d'oiu
resulte, comme on le verra plus tard, de l'obscurite dans les demon-
strationsoZuils cherchent'aremontera la source des profits...
Say's second explanation referred to the state of the law. In English
law at this time a capitalist was not simply a creditor who received a
fixed interest on his capital: anyone who shared in the gains and losses
of an undertakingwas regarded as an active partner:3
D'apres les lois anglais, un capitalistequi n'est pas un simple preteur
touchant un interet fixe, mais qui a une part proportionelledans les
beneficeset les pertesd'une entreprise,est considerecomme un associe
gerant; ce qui explique la confusion que les economistes anglais font
presquetous du profit de l'entrepreneuravec celui du capital.
It will not do to lay too much stress on this point of Say's. The capital
required by most forms of enterprise in the early nineteenth century,
other than in transport, was mainly working capital and on a scale
which could generally be met by internal financing, and the simple
partnership or "close corporation" remained the dominant form of
organization throughout the nineteenth century.4 Moreover, notwith-
standing the Bubble Act of 1719, the unincorporated company had
acquiredsomething like legal status during the first half of the nineteenth
century and become an important form of business organization.
It is doubtful whether Say's explanations can carry the weight he
placed upon them. A writer's ability to expound his ideas may be im-
paired by linguistic deficiencies,deficienciesin his conceptual apparatus,
or by institutional forms which blur underlying functional relation-
ships; but neither of these considerations can explain the almost total
lack of comment in English classical political economy on the nature of
business enterprise. Much more important is the focus from which the
problem is approached. A different conceptual apparatus is required
for a microscopic than for a telescopic analysis of economic connections.
1 Treatise, p. 78n. Prinsep also used the term "master", by referring to the
entrepreneuras the "master-agent"and the "master-manufacturer".
2 Traite,vol. I, p. 51n.
3 Ibid., vol. II, p. 270n. This note did not appear in the earlier editions of the
Traite.
4 B. C. Hunt, "The Joint-Stock Company in England, 1830-1844", Joulnal of
Political Economy,vol. 43, (1935) p. 353.
Here it can be argued that, taking as the starting-point Smith's

Wealth of Nations, Ricardian analysis looked for a more fruitful
interpretation of economic phenomena in terms of macro-economic
connections, whilst Say sought for enlightenment more in micro-
economic connections. It can be argued also that Say's personal experi-
ence was such as to lead him in this direction. He was working in
England in the early 1790s as the manager of an assurance company
when he came across the Wealthof Nations. Later, after the publication
of the first edition of the Traite, the financial proposals of which met
with official disapproval and caused hiis dismissal from the Tribunate,
he established a cotton factory at Maubuisson, which he later transferred
to Aulchy-les-Moines in the Pas-de-Calais. He was a practising entre-
preneur, and in the course of his operations he faced and overcame
numerous difficulties, including unco-operative workers, a hostile en-
vironment and adverse natural conditions.'
Clearly Say's treatment of the entrepreneur has deficiencies. Its
central preoccupation was with the static role of the entrepreneur
organizing resources necessary to satisfy market demands. There was
no appreciation of the entrepreneur acting on his environment; con-
sequently the calculations in which the Sayian entrepreneurwas likely
to be involved were all in response to exogenous variables. It is not
surprising, therefore, to find only limited mention of innovation,
although in a number of places the analysis was extended to introduce
the principle of economic change and the consequent elements of
uncertainty. In retrospect it is right to emphasize these elements
wherever they appear, though for Say, perhaps, at the time, they
remained more in the nature of suggestions without the consequences
being worked out. However, this would be to judge Say in terms of the
results of an analysis which did not develop until nearly a century later.
Judged by the standards of his own age, Say's ideas were highly
sophisticated, and, for a static analysis, completely adequate. Un-
doubtedly he had a marked effect on the development of thought of a
number of English writers who adopted some of his terminology and his
analytical approach to business units; and none of the neo-classical
writers half-a-century later was to advance beyond the position he had
developed.
ThamesPolytechnic, London.
1 For Say's biography, see Ernest Teilhac, L'Oeuvre Economiquede Jean-
BaptisteSay, Paris, 1927; for this point see pp. 24-6. The point is not that Ricardo
lacked business acumen; after all he had amassed a sufficientfortune as a stock-
broker to be able to retire in his late twenties. It is merely that Say's experience
had more relevancefor his theoretical predilections.

Say's Conception of The Role of The Entrepreneur by Koolman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Say's Conception of The Role of The Entrepreneur by Koolman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related

Say's Conception of the Role of the Entrepreneur

Say's Conception of the Role of the Entrepreneur

Say's law as a Ricardian construction, remarking at one point that

function. Section IV deals very briefly with the entrepreneur as an

1J-B. Say, A Treatiseon Political Economy,trs., C. R. Prinsep, 1821; reprinted

particularbranch of industry, and afterwardshave accumulated,or

1 Treatise, p. 82. Say defined an industrial undertaking as "an enterprise in

productive services was determined by a variety of motives. Thus Say

an abundanceof obstacles to be surmounted, of anxieties to be repressed,

not and would be ruined: "Dans le meme genre d'industrie, un entre-

produites.Celle de 1'entrepreneuren eprouve de considerables.Voila

enterprise, and the consequent uncertainty as to what profits would be

sible to conduct an enterprise without capital. However, a clear

perpetuellementdes achats et des ventes a faire, des conventions de

productive enterprise or as a supervisor of the agents of production. In

was no agreed terminology, and Say's translator, Prinsep, decided to

Here it can be argued that, taking as the starting-point Smith's

You might also like