Jou nai of EGOWnit B&a vior and Organization 4 (1983) 277~-308.

North-Holland

SCmWETER AND THE THEORY OF CAPlTALIS;T ECONOMJC

DEVELOI’MENT*

John E. ELLlcYI’T**
University of Southern CuQfomia,Los ,Ingdes, CA 9OWWU35, USA

Rfxe~wd August 1983,final version receivei December 1983

This pqer gives a centenary appreciation of the contribution to economic thought of Joseph A.
Sclmmpefer, with sp&zti FOCUSan his work, The Theory cf Economic Deuelopment (TED).’ it
pr&s, first, by providing (in section 1) an overview of Schumpeter’b life and works; second,
by &‘i~g an intcrpzetative exposition of the main themes 0; TED (insection 2) and
Scoampeter’s broader ‘economic ~&bgy’ (in section 3) &I&rms of the place of these ideas in
the history ot economic thought; third, by examining the reception to TED and the impact of it
2nd Schumpeter’s dynamic methodology on the discipline (III section 4).

1. Joseph Alois SchumgPetc; like his illustrious contemporary, John

Maynard Keynes, was born in 1883, the year of death of Karl Marx. I%: died
in 1950, four years after Keynes. Thuq his adult life - and published -works
- roughly span the fii! half of the twentieth century, as h&m’s &I the
middle de&des of the nineteenth. Many schoiars believe that Schumperer
provided the most cor,?rehensive arid provocative analysis since Marx of the
economic developmen: and social transformation of industrializing
capitalism. If Marx was Schumpeter’s worthy opponent, Keynes was his
contemporary ti;raI &II<;antagonist. Schsmpeter’s s::udies of the capita!ist
order and its prospects grovide, with the notable exception of the twitings of
Thorsttin Veblen, the only truly comprehejlsive rival intellectual system to
that of Keynes in the first half of the twentieth century.
Y?‘BDvividly illustrates one of Sshumpeter’s che&ned interpretations
concerning intelbctuw! creativity. In Schumpeter’s ,view, the foundations of
significant creative ~chievtierits, notably theoretical ones, are almost always

*Page numbers in brackets refer to Schumpeter (1983). The intro&ctiou ta this edition has
been substantially revised and adapted for this paper.
**‘The at&or wouM !ike to acknowledge the helpful conune%s of Richard Dz.y, Da.~iel
Fusfeid, Michael Mqtill and Richmd i'Mson on an earlier draft of this p.q~. while a&solvrng
t&m fram r@gonsihUityior errors of content or interpretation which mazayrc:ntain.
!The book appeared in its fiht German edition in the fall of ‘(11I, with a 1912 publishbr’s
cngyright, us&~ the title TlreMPie&f wirtsch@Men Entwkklung. A secead German edirion,
incorporating expository &iterations:but F > sigm%lcantsubstantive cnilages appear-d in 1926.
The English transtation. by Redvers Opie, made lrom a third German edition that was m.crzly a
reprint of the secoac?edition, was published by Harvard Univerdty Press in 19%.
 nd “Wundertind‘. Disdainfu! of what
of @ost of his colleagues, he liked to shock
and formal dress even
1911, with the help of
appointed to the
28, be ww as at Czernowitz, the
bined with the solid
and his practice of
did little to cnde;?ir
accepted a visiting
warded an honor8ry

4 and 1925, then was 8 non-academic interlude which included

ful, stint as Austrian finance mi,Gster, followed by a
bank in Yienna. Schumpeter return4 to acaderruc life
orship at the t Mversity of Bonn. III the early 193/e,
where recf@ion of his writings on
capMist development had created a minor sensation - he accepted a
~r~~o~hi~ at Harvard University and remained there until his death, in
19%”
The decade and 8 half ending in 1940 coincided with a see0118 great
outpouring of writing from Schumpeter, who extended, refined and
daveloped the implications of his early German work of 1908-1914. The
~ec~ti Germaa edition of TE@appeati in 1926. Its English translation was
published in 1934. This was followed by the publication of Schumpeter’s
volun~ study, &&PUSSCycles (1939) and of his provocative
Cup&&vn, SK&-&~ ati D~ac~ (1942). The steady
and reviews written during this period focuseci on the
s of capitdiat development and trausformation, His
of ECO~OB&A~~~~~sfollowed posthumously ( t9.F4).

onomic life as conditioned by

E~ChW, @6hmdkwerk)- intekctud hero, Leon Walra~.~ References tct Carl
!&n@x~ ~founderof the Awtrsi;an ~hoo1, and to B6hm-nawerk, Philipgovich,
&ad ‘wriesttr, three of his teachers g:t the University of ‘V&ma, are interspersed
out:&@ tird ch@f&r of. i?3D: Such basic concqts c&zcla&ifi&on of
the% 6f %XV@order’ (cbnsuniption) and, ‘higher orcje9 (produced
m@anS~.‘trf production : and, ultimately, labor and la&d), .imput&ion,
opp~rtiknity CXX&S;atid-quality of costs and revenues .a$1‘nave dear Austria~a
an&Herkb~ ‘,The -‘notion ..that the economic prsmss is ‘automaticalfg
sy~sohroniz&d~~38];Linthe, setlee that. ‘waiting’ for a futnre !low of tivenues TV
Off&t wrrent’ co& i9 rulnmsary; is a variant EifClark’s earlier ,rlaly;is, as i

is: the -cctne:pt.&&t owners :of labor and3and receive incomes arccording to
~~~~r,*rn~.F~hsrl~lpr~u~~~ty;Debts to Walras also abound, notao& in the
@oncept of the entrep;rateur in ,s;ationary eqnilibriuxq5 the mutual
interdependence between :iousebolds and business firms and the flows of
expenditures between them for products and rzsourcet, aud the tendency
tow&d equilibrium.
Alt;htorrgh:Schumpeter drew:freeiy from the writings of h&zpredecessors and
contempor&r%zs in constructing his conception of the cir&ar flow, his
analysis of even, this ‘most basic economic process showed both
methodok@ independence and r;-eative insight. For Schumpeter’s
conten@oraries, analysis of resource &x&ion znd income: distribution
under static and stationary conditions &ad a logically analytic, a descriptive,
and/or a presctiptive purpose. Such ‘neo-Austrians as von Mises (2.
contemporary of §chumpet@r’s ifi B&m-BawerL’s semilt;-trs 7t: Vienna ir:
190~-l!X.U) and van Hayek pen-&xi the circular flow in terms of what
Mayek (1948) later &led the ‘~_larsLogic of choice’, as cocrdinated bj
competitive market processes. Marshall intended his analyse of basi;:
econouuic processes ro be at ieast roughly descripti.Je c!’ xzal-world
phenomena. J.B. Clark believed that distribution of income in a.xxxdance
with m,arginal productivity was morally just zc well as emp~ricdly zlevant.
According ta Schumpeter, the “essential point to 8raq ai,out captalism’ is

4Schuntpeter expressed his strong intelfectual debt to Walras Sn his preface to : he Japauese
edition of TED, in 1937: To W&as w6 owe a mncept of’tha cconoxn.icsystpm and a tkoretical
apparatus which for the frost time in the history of our science effectively embv.ced the PUE
Iqic of the iut~nf~peA&L~ between k%dnomic nuantities’ [cited iu: Clerntace (195i, $3.l%j. El3
the same source, Schumpeter stated that ‘as an ~CMRXTI&‘, he <wed woz to “Ihe Waif&an
conception arzd the Watra&;u technique . . . than I<, any other ir-rfluer~e’.Four years bier, in an
essay on Alfred Marshell, he cakd W&as ‘the greatest cf ail theolrsts’ (1941, p- 23 ,).
%hlder stationary e~~~iib~iunl conditions. Schumpeter ar@ed, is a maku~er roughly
~~a~l~~ing Walras hcfo:e CPI, ‘there is no class whose charartcristic is chat they possess
produced means of prodaction or consumption goods . . If wz ckoose to CA the manager oi
owner of a hsiaess ~‘~~~~~~~en~l~r~‘,theta he wwld be 523entrepnm w f&San1 ni br@ce ni IPeTe@.
~~~1~~~~ speeil ~~c~i,~~and withomt income of a specinl kind. 1’ the povessors of producm
mea& of~p&u&ni -N&Bc&d “~oyitalists’, thefi Ihejji could Of:y be ~&3dUCCs,differing in
fro&i &her producers, and could no more than the others sell &:ir products above the
ectsts given 14 the total of wages and rents’ [45-463.
 J.E.. Ebtt, SC umpeter and capitalist ecwonric dewlopment 283

m&et or source of supp13r;a new form of commercial, business, or fiuancial

organization. The great innovations in the .b&sry of capitalist
hhl!&htitian; +Or QW?%&; Ebsr: assochted with. rtiroadization in the
hW#tb ~&tlliJt~and ‘&e development of the automobile in the twentieth,
typidy~~ have, emergedfmm the commercial and industrial sect.or~ of the
ecMlOXlkY, not f~Wa% the *sovereign consumer’ of classical and rreoclassical
OcO~otic theory. The innovational process, Schumpeter su.bsecpentfy
O&WV& [t%(x, p. 83, “incessantly revolutionizes the economic strncture
‘%om within”, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly sreating s new
or%%This.- process of Creative Destruction is 1% essentkl fact about
~pifalism~‘; I
‘ Th;ec~mmercial applic&ion of a new idea, often involktg the acquisition
and redirection of the employment of existing means of production, must ‘be
fmanced. It cannot be financed from the revenues received in the stationary
circular tflow, because these are just suficient to cover existing costs and
depreciation. They are not sufticient and not geseraltp availabie for the
daring cxpefiments involved in shifting to new way of doing things,
especially when- these new ideas kvolve (as they customarily do) uew net
investment beyond replacement requkments. Innovations, bo:h logkl!y and
tistorkally, must be financed by tw&ng tc a source of CrLtiit ~.%e and
beyond the circular flow, namely, the commercial bank, the only private
financial institution in the capitalist economy with the unique power tcj
create new money, new purchasing power above current saving out cf
current income,
Innovation thus is distinguishable from the financing of the innovation,
and .the innovator or ‘entrepreneur’ is distinguishable from. the capitalist
‘owners of money, claims to money, or material goods’ f75], even when,
coincidentally, they are the same person. The innovatCJr-o,ntrepren~~r must

convince the capitalist that the higher revenues and/;or Icwer costs stemming
from his innovation will enable him to nay both princip.tj *+ndinterest on the
loan.. The innovator must convince himself that the profits exj=cted from tk
innovation will be sufficient to do this and leave a net profit for him. Thus,
credit creatio!n ‘4s a necessary but not, by itself, sufficient condition for
economic development in a capita&t economy.
The provision of credit by capitalists to entreyeneurs to finance
innovations is a vital function in a capitalist econcm~~, indeed. ‘irnp~~.ani
enough to serve as its “differentia specifica”” l[69). But the lirchpln of
economic development, awarding to Schumpeter, is GIPI‘carrying out 06 nt:w
combinations’, the putting into practice of the new iaess by entreprcn~urs.
Entrcprenears are dist~~~~shabl~ not gala, from in-mtors .md capitalists, but
from businessmen-managers as well. Entrepreneurship is broader ihan
business management because r.ot all entrepreneurs operate estabkhed
businesses, It is ~~r~~w~~’ than business ~~~~~~i~e~t because mt dl
 ces in on\ overall category five
tal, increases in population,
impro.Jements in technique,
n, In .~h~~~~r’s more exacting
-Woke mere f quantitative expansiui:
to ~~~~ in tf e ‘composition’ of the
al dynamic hcaretical fraAmework.
t exantnla of the qualitative
goes substantially beyond
Cngto Sehumpeter? essential
economic ~heno~na upon ani are profot n31y affected by the
of economic de it al d capital, profit, and
non& development is not a
mere adjunct or appendix ta the central body of economic amY;ds, but the
foundation for a ~inte~retati~n of most of the economi: ;,rozesses which, in
conventional mainstream economics, are considered wi:hin the constraining
framework of static and stationary genera! equilibriu_m. These topics are
examined in great detail in chapters 3,4 and 5 of TED,
There is a third di&rence between Clark’s and Schu-mpeter’s conception of
economic development which may be higblightcct by reference to Karl Marx.
Clark regarded his five sources of economic change as ‘external data’ that
impinge upon b~2nom.i~ processes. In Schumpeter’s view, thic, fails to
that changes in technique and productive organization ‘require
special analysis and evoke something different again from [mere]
disturbances in the theoretical sense. The non-recognition of this is the most
important single reason for what appears unsatisfactory to LS in economic
theory. From this i~~i~~~t~loo~g source flows . . + a new conception of
the economic process’ f6On3.
‘(his cew conception, Schumpeter continues, ‘is more nearly parallel to
that of Marx. For accord to him there is an “internal” economic
development ;md no mere ptation of economic life to changing data’
C6On-J.Schumpeter elaborated on this point in the preface to the Japanese
edition of TED (1951c, p, 159). The aim of his work, he there observes, was
to ‘construct a ic model of the process of economic change in time, or
to answer the question how the economic system
transforms it’. Tn contrast to economists
ter there was ‘a source of
 change, Schumpeter
tial cydkal elements in
y, incidental, accidentai
skeleton of economic life,
I, p. 137). The second
nted more fully in
complicating features of
on top of the underlying ‘primary
to in the preface to &he English
in his 1939 study, distinguishes

al history of economics in the twentieth

n remembered more fur his analysis of
nt. In part, this is
analysis. As Alvin
one of the most
iginated nearly all
of the really basic ideas in modern business-cycle theory’ in the early
twenty@ century. Indeed, Hansen observes that it was tk: belated eITort of
English-s economists to catch up with Continental titerature on
money, cycles and allied matters which led to the English
translation of 7’EQ in 1934 The publication, in 1939, of Schumpeter ‘s
monumental two-volume study on cycles reinforced his image as essertially a
cycle theorist alkA a highly gifted one. No doubh the emphasis of the
economics profeffion upon short-run issues of depression and
utrtxnployment,stimulated by a combination of the Great Depression of the
1930s and the publication and dissemination of Keynes’s General Theory
further reinforced this process, as did the expositions of Schumpeter’s cycle
theory in the prominent texts of his Harvard colleagues Alvin Hansen (1951)
and Gottfried Haberler (1962).
What differentiases Schumpeter’s cycle analysis, however, from that of his
is precisely his explicit
development and cyclical ktuations.
occurs rhroargh a cyclical process, while
Iopment. Consequently, ciiclical fluctuations
wth, and depressions are not necessarily
b~~~daw~. Indee .I; cycles are the normal

ndamental question:
ther than eve
isKribut~ t4rough
in groups or swamS* -
 v that Schurnpeter was morn
Px1 iUUlySiS Of instituticmai
than were institutionahst criti.cs of
.~~~e~ oantury. At the very least,
eonti~~ quasi analogu: to
as Thorstein V&en and ,John

r ~~~v~d~dcsnsi able biological and political

notably m his papers on ‘The
in an Ethnically Womogeneo~s
widely read work C&rpitatis.~,
ter’s posthumously published,
.Econonric Analysis coxltains
tural Hting and Zeitgcist of
in their historical development.
the other substantive, should
~logiczl’ work. First, these
inguishable, feds. Instead,
s in TED. If Fchumpctel’s
ctioning and .development
ay be dexribed as both
eI~~ra~ng and ~lius~rating &se :arIy ideas ard supplementing them by
~n~d~~g the origins and transformation of, the future prospects for, and
the pros~~ve successor(s) tc capit&sm. Together, Joseph A. Schumpete8s
~if~w~~~$comtitute 4 more 01 1.~1smtegrated study of the birth, the develop-
ment and the historical transcience of industriaiixing capitalism in Western
SOCiC&.
Moreover, in his centennial essay on the Communist Manifesto, Schumpeter
[X949, in Hamilton, Nees and Johnson (i962, p. 345)] di&nguishes
nomics’ and ‘econonric sociology’ (from the original German
zidogi& By economics, Schumpeter means ‘the interpretive
the economic m,~hanisms that play within an_vgiven state of
.** institutions, such as market mechr6sms.’ By econoxic sociology,
of ‘economicatlly relevant
avior ir general, such as

I j that any economic

 in the cteative l&-process of both Keynes and Man;
hi‘s own, that is, each presented an eariy ‘vision’
et ibeoreati@rrtdepth. For Marx, this was
the: .‘~~~~t Manifesto to Capita!.
t: in his2own work from
et+,the ‘so&4 vision first revealed in the;
vision of an economic process in
d, saving habits nevertheless persist, is
rQITheor3r of Employment, fnterest and
2, pp. 92-93)j. Lastly, Schumpeter’s
i capitalism’s malaise, like his cri.‘que
alternative interpretive defense of
on an explicitly dynamic theoretical framework.
~~u~~ ~ey~~‘s analysis contained ‘several dynamic: elements,
tations in particular’, the ‘exact skeleton’ of his analytical system,
,h&.i, ksy in the realm of short-run, static equilibrium. According
peter (1952, p. 991, the lack of a primarily dynamic theoretical
framework is pret-isely the leading defect of Keynes’s analysis. ‘All the
~~r~o~:la incident to . . . creation and change . . . that is to say, the
pi-’ c;jmena that dominate the capitalist processes, are thus excluded from
consideration.’ Ry contrast, Schumpeter’s alternative to both Keynes and
Marx is explicitly dynamic and evolutionary.
Thus, Schump;ter confron& Marx and Keynes directly. First, whatever its
contradictory proclivities, capitalism has been an immense success. Second,
contradictory propensities actually p&orm a creative function in
indust~al~~tion. Third, capitalism shows :no lik&ihood of imminent
breakdown under the weight of ‘economic failure’. To illustrate, consider
S&umpeter”s dynamic interpretation c-f cyclical depressions, inequality and
surplus v&es, and monopoly.
In Schumpeter’s original analysis, as explained earlier, cyclical fluctuations
are no barrier to economic growth, and depressions an not necessarily an
st failure or breakdown.. Schumpeter’s Economica article
bout the time of the .wond edition of TED, suprsiements
hat work and should be read in ~o~jun~t~o~ with
ter ~~rod~~ one of his favorite pr~~~osit~o~s
~~~ressi~~ c’ese
,zve go: ia ehe ha
antes, hrr. can k<:
on CTcated by nhe
~~~~~~S~~
de. "-vz
cy& fr3m f93? t,_ r937 in the
f#.Z’
_;liu t&l
_G&___J t;nri U‘IU
_*.%_
_I&‘.+*14cE
C.mCQ?‘n*
-6.
U:IIU&*IC
Xi.
 29?

ninetcsenthand curly twfNietth centuries. He also agree;

&icsbf monopoly that comparison.
lower oWpr@ and inputs, higher prices,
opsony enterprises than for competitive
ones he denies th monopoiy is a fiaw, contradiction, or failure in
~~t$~~~*s ‘economic
In part, Schumpeter’s evaluation of monopoiy reflects his conception of
competition as a dy?W~ic pVC@SS rather than as a set of structural conditions
Briton end-state. In this, he is closer to Marx than to sue;,
inditidiative economists as Hayek and Friedm~r ,
+vh3 prcW~St3 atomistblly competitive markets as social processes fo-
c%bnomic ctwrdinatian iand control of business enterpriss. By Contras,
!Sd~ufapeter)s analysis of the role of ‘big busincss’ bears a striking
resembI’anee to certain features of the laissez-faire conservatism and ‘Soci~I
Darwinism’ of tbe late nineteenth century. Schumpeter’s hero is not tk :
competitive market, but the creative, daring entrepreneur, the ‘captain 0;
industry’; who makes the innovations that introduce new prodtzts, embed;,
resour& disco&es and technoiogical improvements, and tien new markets,
and; in the process, build new industrial empires.
To’ Schumpcter, the dynamic innovations of the entr~prz;reurial class
constitute a powerful competitive fore in economJ..z develc,pment. The
‘perennia.? gale of Creative destruction’, whereby new products end processes
displace old ones, is vastly more important than price competition among
existing firms and products. Because capitalism is a dynamic, evolutionary
economic system, it, and short-run market strategies of business firms, must
be appraised in terms of ‘the perennial gale of creative destruction’, that is, in
terms of long-run develok?nentak dynamism. The really ‘relevant problem’ is
not ‘how capitahsm administers existing structures’, but ‘how it creates and
destroys them’ [S&nnpeter (1950, p. 8413.
St&d dikently, it is quite possible that short-run semi-monopolistic
positions, ‘agre&ments and strategies, with accompanying short-run
inefWenciti in resource allocation and inequalities in income distribution,
to provide a basis for the innovational investment that brin,z3
run performance and more vigorous long-run competition.
hip may be, in 1 mea.sure, a function of am institurional
structure which its prot~~t~~n b,throu& for ev3mpte,
e innovator and the eration of pure
economic profits th-oagh the manipulation of price, ity and quality
which in the sheet run a restrictive and
ibihty of retortions at least rzmporarily, of
ovations may well stimulate a higher rate of
ent. ~~Qr~~~~~ strat
n of the ~~~Q~~~o~rh
Cordon, R..h., 1963, it: Jowph Damn, ed., Institutional econov.& s: ~eolen, COCOONS and

Mitch& ~nsiderec (University of California, Berkeley, <:A).

%&h& Alan G., 1947, rdodern economic thought: The Amexican : -ntr;oution (Prentice-Hal!,
New Yor&.).
Gruohy, Alan G, f97f. Contemporary economic thou&z The cmtrib~tion of l~eo-
ins:itution&st aconom; ;9 (Augustus M. Kelley, Clifton, NJ).
Haberler, Gottfried von, 1251, Joseph A. S&urn-pter, 1883--1950. k: Seymour E. Harris, ed.,
Schumpeter. Social scier tist (Harvard Un;vtrsity Press, Cambrrdge, MA) 24-47.
HabcrLr, Gottfricd van, 1st 2. Prosperit: anti depression (Atherrwn, New York).
Hagen, i ierctt i?, 1962, C)n Ihe theory of ;ociaa change: How economic growth begins (Dc .9ey,
Homewood, f L).
Hansen, Akin E. 1936, Rc iew of Joseph A. SchuinprtPr, Tie ~leory of ewnomic development
(1934), Journa.’ of Politic al Economy 44, -563.
Hansen, Altin E., 1951, Bus ness cycles and nationaf inmme iNr rton, New Yo.-kj.
Hansen, Alvin E, 1952, sthumpei’s contribution to )9us-a?ss cwle thecry, in: Seymox E.
Harris, a& The new economics (Knopf, New York).
Harris, S&L,P& 19.;1, Srhumpeterz Social scientist (Harvad University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Harris, S.E., ed, 1.252,The new economics: Ke_m’ ii ilug:w,- on theory ami public policy
(Knopf, Flew Yo:k).
Hayek, Frietuich A. van, 1948, Economic and knowledge, iii: !ndividua%m and economic order
(lJnivemty of Ch cage, Chicago, IL) 33--56.
Howey, R.1’., 1935, Review of Joseph A. Schumpter, The The t&ory OI economic devciopment
11934), American ltioutimic Review 25,90-91.
Khan, M: .rd. Shabbil, 1957, Schumpeter’s theory of capitalist developrw .i (Muslim Univasity,
Delhi).
Kuznets, Finon, 1940, Schumpeter’s business cycles, American Economic K&ew 30, X5’!-271.
McCrea, PC.., 1913, S;humpeter’s economic system, Quhrteriy Journal of Economics 27, 52s.
529. .
Mason, E.iward S., 1957, Economic concentration and the monopoly problem (Harvard
Univc:rsity Press, Cambridge, MA).
Minsky, Hyman, 1975, John Ma_ynard Keynes (Columbia University Press, New York).
Morgenstern, Oscar, 1927, Review of Joseph A. Schumpeter,. The theory of eCOnomlc
dtvelopment (1926), Atierican Economic Review.
Naymier, L.B., 1913, Review of Joseph A. Schumpeter, The thmry of economic development
(1911f, E~~oNGc Journal 23,105-106.
Nelson, Richard R_ 19&, A diffusion model of inten ational producoikity differences in
manufacturing ind.&y, American BconQmie Review 58, 12%1248.
Nelson, R&hard R. and Sidney G. Winter, An evolutionary heory of economic change (Harvard
Univerjity Press, Cambridge, MA)
Neiser Hats, 1935, Review oT Joseph A. f,cht, mpeter, ‘II :: theory of ecsn~mic developnxn%
(191146,Sacial Research 2, 303-397.
Nugent, G. and P.A. Yotopoulos, 1979, U&t has orthot!,ox ?conorrics learned from recent
experience?. World Devclcpment, 54’-554.
Parker, William, 1984, Capi&list organizA:ion and II ,tional sric response; i’ariatron on a Cwme
by Schumpeter, in: Journal of Economic Behavior and 3rganitation .’ no. i. Reprinted in
@.uiuar &won, Erik L)ahm&n uncl Rich&d Day, e is., The dqna.lticn of decentra!ized
(market) economies (North-Holland, Amsterdam) i’orthcorning.
Kobbins, Lionel, 1930. On ii certain ar&iguity in the conception 0” s9.itwnarj cquil;hrrum.
Economic Journal 40, 194-214.
S:tlruel~o~l, Paul A., I%?, Schutrpeter a: a teacher and an ewnornic the*>-i:.t, in: Seym!wr F
Hales, Schumpeter: Social scientist (H.rrvard University Pres. C’amtbridge, MA).
S&neluer, Erich, 19’75,Joseph A. Schumeter: Li;is and work of a gr:at social scienlkt Q’.b’.

Kuhn, translator (Bureau of Business Research, I.incoln, ?‘cTEj.

SL;wnpeter, Joseph A.. 19.39. Business cysl~s: A &*oretical. historical ,! :cf statisticat dual 51s ctf
the capitalist process (M&raw-Hill, New York).
“;hbn.peter, Josqh A., 1919 The cnmn:! nist manifes:r> lriecoilt)rnw dii~l stKl0li~g Ii‘ Fiirl
t I;.mlltiln. tilh 1 RX> ;,ill. t hi \ 3dh~WZ~, t&i., I961, l.,~dmarAs In c)C> It&l ccw;vmj. Vol.
2 :IlJn&rsity of Chicago, Chiclegcs,IL) 357-358.