ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

We are living in a complex and dynamic world in which innovation and entrepreneurship are occupying a decisive role for economic development. According to Joseph Alois Schumpeter “carrying out innovations is the only function which is fundamental in history”. He also accented that It is entrepreneurship that ”replaces today’s Pareto optimum with tomorrow’s different new thing”. Schumpeter's words that entrepreneurship is innovation have never seemed so appropriate as the nowadays, when modern capitalism is experiencing a serious crisis and lost his strength during last subprime and euro-debt crises. The purpose of this paper is the analysis of the Schumpeter’s innovation concept in a context of “first” and “second” Entrepreneurship theory.
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
89
SCHUMPETER’S VIEW ON INNOVATION AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
We are living in a complex and dynamic world in which innovation and entrepreneur-
ship are occupying a decisive role for economic development. According to Joseph Alois
Schumpeter “carrying out innovations is the only function which is fundamental in his-
tory”. He also accented that It is entrepreneurship that ”replaces today’s Pareto opti-
mum with tomorrow’s different new thing”. Schumpeter's words that entrepreneurship
is innovation have never seemed so appropriate as the nowadays, when modern capi-
talism is experiencing a serious crisis and lost his strength during last subprime and eu-
ro-debt crises. The purpose of this paper is the analysis of the Schumpeter’s innovation
concept in a context of “first” and “second” Entrepreneurship theory.
Innovation, entrepreneurship, Schumpeter’s economy
1. Introduction
Joseph Alois Schumpeter is regarded as one of the greatest economists of the first half
of the twentieth century. At that time he took part in the most important economic de-
bates. After his death, he had been (more or less) forgotten for around three decades. In
the early 1980s Schumpeterian economics were considered extremely broad after a peri-
od when traditional economic approaches were increasingly criticized. Nowadays when
economies struggles with banking and debt crises, parallel they are “knowledge based”
economies with globalization and increasingly importance of intangible resources.
The concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship are probably Schumpeter’s most dis-
tinctive contributions to economics[1]. One of the most common themes in Schumpeter’s
writings was the role of innovation (“new combinations”) and entrepreneurship in eco-
nomic growth. Despite the fact that Schumpeter was among the first who lay out the clear
concept of innovation his views on the topic changed over time. In his earlier view (em-
phasized in The Theory of Economic Development, originally published in 1912[2]),
Schumpeter highlighted the function of entrepreneurs who is carrying out new combina-
tions. He viewed the occurrence of discontinuous and “revolutionary” change as the core
of “economic development” which breaks the economy out of its static mode (“circular
flow”) and sets it on a dynamic path of fits and starts. Three decades later, in his Capital-
ism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942)[3], Schumpeter took the view that dynamic capital-
90
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
ism was executed to fail because the very efficiency of capitalist enterprise would lead to
monopolistic structures and the disappearance of the entrepreneur. What is interesting
Schumpeter's words have never seemed so appropriate as nowadays, when modern capi-
talism is experiencing a serious crisis and has lost his strength during last subprime and
euro-debt crises.
2. Schumpeter’s innovation theory
Although since the late 1880s there have been reports of the use of the term “innova-
tion” to mean something unusual, none of first precursors of innovation have been as
influential as the Schumpeter. According to him, consumer preferences are already given
and do not undergo spontaneously. It means that they cannot be cause of the economic
change. Moreover, consumers in the process of economic development play a passive
role. In Theory of economic development [4] and further work [5],[3], Schumpeter de-
scribed development as historical process of structural changes, substantially driven by
innovation which was divided by him into five types [4]:
1. launch of a new product or a new species of already known product;
2. application of new methods of production or sales of a product (not yet proven in the
industry);
3. opening of a new market (the market for which a branch of the industry was not yet
represented);
4. acquiring of new sources of supply of raw material or semi-finished goods;
5. new industry structure such as the creation or destruction of a monopoly position.
Schumpeter argued that anyone seeking profits must innovate. That will cause the dif-
ferent employment of economic system’s existing supplies of productive means [4].
Schumpeter believed that innovation is considered as an essential driver of competitive-
ness [6] and economic dynamics [7]. He also believed that innovation is the center of eco-
nomic change causing gales of “creative destruction”, which is a term created by Schum-
peter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy [3]. According to Schumpeter innovation is a
"process of industrial mutation, that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure
from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one".
Schumpeter described development as historical process of structural changes, sub-
stantially driven by innovation[2],[5],[9]. He divided the innovation process into four di-
mensions: invention, innovation, diffusion and imitation [8]. Then he puts the dynamic
entrepreneur in the middle of his analysis [2]. In Schumpeter’s theory, the possibility and
activity of the entrepreneurs, drawing upon the discoveries of scientists and inventors,
create completely new opportunities for investment, growth and employment. In Schum-
peter’s analysis, the invention phase or the basic innovation have less of an impact, while
the diffusion and imitation process have a much greater influence on the state of an
economy. The macroeconomic effects of any basic innovation are hardly noticeable in the
first few years (and often even longer). What matters in terms of economic growth, in-
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
91
vestment and employment, is not the discovery of basic innovation, but rather the diffu-
sion of basic innovation, which is the period when imitators begin to realize the profitable
potential of the new product or process and start to invest heavily in that technology [10].
It is worth noting that according to Schumpeter invention is not the cause: discovery
and execution are “two entirely different things” [5]. “The pure new idea is not adequate
by itself to lead to implementation ... . It must be taken up by a strong character (entre-
preneur) and implemented through his influence” [2]. It is not the power of ideas but the
power that gets things done. Schumpeter says that “creative destruction” is “the essence
of capitalism” [3]. A stationary economy, reactive, repetitive and routine, is a circular flow
that admits of no surprises or shocks, “an unchanging economic process which flows on at
constant rates in time and merely reproduces itself” [5]. Whereas a stationary feudal
economy would still be a feudal economy, and a stationary socialist economy would still
be a socialist economy, stationary capitalism is a contradiction in terms [9]. Schumpeter
writes that: “… capitalist reality is first and last a process of change” [3] where change is
the essence. Absent creative destruction, what remains would be perpetual imitation and
thus not the essence of capitalism at all. According to Schumpeter, innovations are essen-
tial to explaining economic growth, and the “entrepreneur” is the central innovator. As
Schumpeter described in The Theory of Economic Development the entrepreneur’s main
function is to allocate existing resources to “new uses and new combinations”. One of
Schumpeter’s most lasting contributions was his insistence that entrepreneurship is at
once a unique factor of production and the rare social input that makes economic history
evolve.
In other words innovation is the “creative destruction” that develops the economy
while the entrepreneur performs the function of the change creator. In Schumpeter’s
work entrepreneur is: “Carrying out innovations is the only function which is fundamental
in history” [5]. Typical characteristics of entrepreneurs are: intelligence, alertness, energy
and determination. Entrepreneurship is innovation and the actualization of innovation. In
this point it has to be clearly marked that entrepreneurship cannot be confused with the
four complementary functions of invention: risk-taking, error-correction and administra-
tion (which in Schumpeter’s economics of evolution are separate), distinctive and non-
entrepreneurial in nature. In Schumpeter's work on entrepreneurship we can select two
phases: an “early phase” - „First“ Entrepreneurship theory, and “late phase” - „Second“
Entrepreneurship theory.
3. Schumpeter’s „First“ Entrepreneurship theory
Before the neoclassical era entrepreneur was considered as the central figure, the
turning point of economic development. Richard Cantillon (in 1755) called the entrepre-
neur an “undertaker”, a person that does not retreat from engaging in risky business ven-
tures. He buys and produces goods for a certain price to sell it later on at a yet unknown
price. His disposition to face risks makes him an entrepreneur. François Quesnay (in 1888)
added the importance of capital which renders possible any entrepreneurial action in the
92
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
first place. In 1845 Jean-Baptiste Say developed the most comprehensive concept of en-
trepreneurship at that time. The entrepreneur uses the ideas of a philosopher, that is new
knowledge, which has not yet been applied in the economy to produce a new product. To
do this the entrepreneur employs workers, capital and natural resources to actualize the
new knowledge into a tradable good [14]. The Authors of a combination of new produc-
tion or innovation are the "leaders-new people." These innovations may be used only by
the administrators of the means of production. What is important the administrators of
the means of production, in addition to companies manufacturing, are those units which
took bank loan for the purchase of these measures about to comply with the new combi-
nation[5]. This units Schumpeter called “entrepreneurs”.
The vision of the entrepreneur in Schumpeter's theory is different from the others,
(the concept presented in the literature that time) such as: John Bates Clark, Frank Wil-
liam Taussig, Eugen Boehm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Leon Walras and Alfred Mar-
shall. They referred to the recognition of entrepreneurs by Adam Smith, and above all,
Richard Cantillon, (who first used the term “entrepreneur”) and Jean Baptiste Say, who
was recognized as the one who introduced the character of “entrepreneurto economic
theory. In all these theoretical concepts entrepreneur was simply the organizer and man-
ager of production or trade. Most often it was the employer and the owner of a capital.
Schumpeter’s “entrepreneur” definition has functional character and concerns only func-
tions and activities related to innovation. At the same time the entrepreneur may be a
person who is not the owner of a capital. In the context of the contemporary debate on
entrepreneurship and economic development of capitalism, Schumpeter's “entrepreneur“
concept gives banks (and banking system) the possibility of implanting innovations in the
economy.
Schumpeter in his early work presents the following entrepreneurship definition: “The
function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by ex-
ploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing
a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of
supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on”
[3]. The entrepreneur is a pioneer who is able to “act with confidence beyond the range of
familiar beacons” [3]. “His characteristic task theoretically as well as historically con-
sists precisely in breaking up old, and creating new, tradition” [2]. As R.L. Allen rightly
pointed it would be better if Schumpeter, instead of using the concept of an entrepreneur
in his theory, used the concept of an “innovator”. It would shut down (lasting until today)
confusion associated with different semantic meaning of commonly used word. Anyway
“Schumpeter's entrepreneur“ become a permanent part on the contemporary economic
theory.
However, the entrepreneur is the only one who indeed carries out new combinations.
Furthermore, person who has organized his company is immediately losing entrepreneur
function and begins to lead his company in accordance with a Schumpeter’s circular mo-
tion”. That is why there are no people who are lifelong entrepreneurs, and also there are
no businessman who even for a while was not an entrepreneur. According to Schumpeter,
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
93
it is not necessarily an entrepreneur who receives profit, but surely it is created entirely
thanks to him. Profit goes to the “capitalist” (the owner of the company), as well as the
rent goes to the hands of the owners of the land. Entrepreneur does not even have guar-
antee that it will remain entrepreneur in future. Everything depends only on his talent and
the will to act. Besides that Schumpeter finds for entrepreneur three more motives to act,
there are:
the desire to create "own kingdom." Modern man, through his successes in industry or
trade, can get a sense of power and independence similar to the situation of the Euro-
pean medieval lord;
the desire for gain. Entrepreneur can realize his wish to fight, to compete, to showing
his superiority over others, winning for the sake of winning. Comparing to the sport, in
economic life, there are "financial racing" but there is "financial boxing" too;
the joy of creation, to achieve something, or just exercise the energy and ingenious-
ness.
4. Schumpeter’s „Second“ Entrepreneurship theory
In the late thirties, Schumpeter began to move away from his earlier theory of entre-
preneurship, then ultimately at the end of the thirties he presented new theory, which is
completely different [12]. Indeed, it can be seen for example in: Capitalism, socialism and
democracy (1942). In presented theory of the development of capitalism, Schumpeter put
a much smaller emphasis on the entrepreneur as defined in the Theory of economic de-
velopment from 1911 (and reformulated edition in 1926). What more can be seen that in
the Business Cycles (1939), Schumpeter put much greater emphasis on innovation in the
strict sense, than on the entrepreneurship. The new (second) Entrepreneurship theory
has been outlined by Schumpeter in four articles: The Creative Response in Economic His-
tory (1947), Theoretical Problems of economic Growth (1947), Economic Theory and En-
trepreneurial History (1949) and The Historical Approach to the Analysis of Business Cycles
(1949)[13]. The second theory is primarily a less individualistic”. Schumpeter says explic-
itly, that entrepreneur does not have to be one person (which is a radical departure from
his earlier recognition entrepreneur as an outstanding individualist). Schumpeter even
states that the country itself, or its agenda, can act as an entrepreneur. The evolution of
Schumpeter's Entrepreneurship theory was caused by his direct personal observation of
American economic life.
In the new theory, Schumpeter does not make the entrepreneur right axis to all other
concepts. Relationship between the entrepreneur and banker was considered differently
too. Under the influence of the American experience, Schumpeter has abandon unilateral
inclusion formed on the basis of observations in Central Europe in the early twentieth
century. The idyllic vision of the banker as the most important authority of the capitalist
economy, the banker who was a representative of society authorized to provide financial
sanction to innovative activities of entrepreneur, is replaced by the realistic image of
94
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
modern impersonal prudent bank, embarrassing flexibility to innovator seeking to control
the enterprise [13].
New Schumpeter's theory, as described in his last articles, was then widely ignored.
One reason for this reaction was the fact, that in these texts Schumpeter started (to the
displeasure of American economists) clearly presented thesis of the need to approach
from the theoretical economics to economic history. Moreover, in his recent speeches,
Schumpeter also claimed that the use of mathematical models in the study of the busi-
ness cycles is rather barren cognitive, and among the three methods of cycle research:
theoretical, statistical and historical, definitely the last one is the most valuable. These
statements shocked contemporary American economists (such as Paul Samuelson), who
at that time were fully convinced that the development of economic science is completely
linked to the continued expansion in the use of mathematical methods. These words of
the economist who co-founded the first in the world econometric society and for almost
half of his life emphasized the need to use mathematical methods seemed to be astonish-
ing. What is important Schumpeter categorically rejected the other extreme which is re-
duction of the economy to the abstract mathematical models, with total disregard for the
institutional analysis and empirical studies, and history. In one of the articles published in
the last years of his life, Schumpeter said bitterly that "due to human weakness (i.e. con-
venience) economists are inclined to be regarded as non-existent all the phenomena of
nature which is not quantitative, and sometimes even all those that are immeasurable.
5. Conclusions
The increasing complication of modern economies causes the necessity a higher rate
of economic interaction. Today’s knowledge-based economies are dependent by a dy-
namic technological progress. The generation of innovation no longer depends on individ-
ual personalities but involves the cooperation of many different actors. This requires cog-
nitive capabilities that increase the diffusion and thus the understanding of innovation
leading to entrepreneurship. The Schumpeter‘s innovation and etrepreneur concept is
universal and still evolving in principles of Neo-Schumpeterian economics. Schumpeter's
words have never seemed so appropriate as nowadays, when modern capitalism is expe-
riencing a serious crisis and has lost his strength during last subprime and euro-debt crises
In the conclusions we might ask: whether there nowadays countries should be the entre-
preneurs (who currently implanted innovation in the economic system) and whether
there performing of those “nowadays entrepreneurs” would be the best solution in the
post-crisis action?
References
[1] HANUSH, H. and PYKA, A., 2007. Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 857
[2] SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1912. The Theory of Economic Development, tenth printing 2004,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey
KAROL ŚLEDZIK
Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship
95
[3] SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition, London:
George Allen and Unwin, 1976
[4] SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1934, The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits,
capital, credit, interest and the business cycle, Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. 46, Har-
vard College, Cambridge, MA.
[5] SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1939, Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analy-
sis of the Capitalist Process, 2 vol, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[6] PORTER, M.E. and STERN, S. 1999, The New Challenge to America’s Prosperity: Findings
from the Innovation Index, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC
[7] HANUSH, H. and PYKA, A. 2007, Introduction, [in:] HANUSH, H. and PYKA, A., Elgar Com-
panion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
[8] BURTON-JONES, A. 1999, Knowledge Capitalism Business, Work, and Learning in the
New Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[9] SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1943, Capitalism in the postwar world’, in S.E. HARRIS (ed.), Postwar
Economic Problems, in Essays (Schumpeter, 1951),
[10] FREEMAN, C. 1987, Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan,
Frances Printer Publishers, London, New York,
[11] ALLEN R.L., 1994, Opening Doors. The life and Work of Joseph Schumpeter, Vol. 1 and
Vol. 2. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey
[12] SWEDBERG R., 1991, Schumpeter. A Biography, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey,
[13] CLEMENCE R.V., (ed.) 2009, Essays on Entrepreneurship, Innovations, Business Cycles
and the Evolution of the Capitalism, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, New Jersey,
[14] GREBEL T., 2007, Neo-Schumpeterian perspectives in entrepreneurs research, [in:]
HANUSH, H. and PYKA, A., Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham,
Karol Śledzik, PhD
University of Gdańsk
Faculty of Management
Department of Banking
ul. Armii Krajowej 101
81-824 Sopot, POLAND
email: karol.sledzik@ug.edu.pl
citation:
Śledzik K., (2013), Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship (in:) Management
Trends in Theory and Practice, (ed.) Stefan Hittmar, Faculty of Management Science and In-
formatics, University of Zilina & Institute of Management by University of Zilina
... Innovation is what distinguishes an entrepreneurial firm from conservative firms (Miller, 1982). As earlier noted, innovation could either be new products or new processes; it does not only heighten the competition; it increases profits for the entrepreneur and creates jobs.Schumpeter argued that individuals or organizations seeking profits must innovate (Sledzik, 2013). Schumpeter believed that innovation is considered as a crucial factor that drives competition as well as economic growth. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed at entrepreneurial orientation and performance of agro business in North Central State, Nigeria. The study specifically investigated the effect of EO dimensions on productivity and profitability of agro-business among others. The study adopted a survey research design with a focus on quantitative research methods. The study used the proportionate stratified sampling method. With the sample size of 375, proportionate stratified sampling was used to select the number of firms. To test the reliability of constructs, Cronbach Alpha Test was employed. The study used descriptive statistics, correlation and covariates for data analyses. Hypotheses were tested using regression technique. Finding showed that innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness have significant positive effect on productivity of agro-business in the North Central State, Nigeria. Finding further showed that innovativeness and proactiveness have significant positive effect on the profitability of agro-business in the North Central State, Nigeria. The study concluded that EO is crucial for driving desirable business performance. This study recommended that agro-business firms should focus more on innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness andcompetitive aggressiveness in the pursuit of improved productivity; and that they should target only innovativeness and proactiveness for sustainable increase inprofitability.
... First, this paper contributes by identifying that decisionmaking styles (i.e., maximizing) may be an important antecedent to entrepreneurial intentions and thus advances our understanding of what drives individuals to become entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship plays an important role in economic development in our complex and dynamic business environment (Gyimah & Lussier, 2021;Śledzik, 2013). It was found that those who maximize reported greater entrepreneurial intentions. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates whether an individual’s tendency to maximize when making decisions influences their entrepreneurial intentions, innovation behavior, entrepreneurial alertness, and opportunity evaluation. It is predicted that maximizers will have greater entrepreneurial intentions. Underlying this process, it is predicted that maximizers will report greater innovation behavior and entrepreneurial alertness. Using data from a survey of 253 working professionals in the U.S., hypotheses are tested using multiple regression and mediation analysis. The results suggest that maximizers have higher entrepreneurial intentions, and that this relationship is mediated by their innovation behavior and entrepreneurial alertness. A second study is conducted with a survey of 192 students to explore how maximizers evaluate a specific entrepreneurial opportunity, and how their evaluation influences their entrepreneurial intentions. Using mediation analysis, findings of study 2 suggest that maximizers are more likely to see business opportunities as attractive, which increases their entrepreneurial intentions. The second study also replicates the main results of study 1 in a unique sample.
Chapter
Social entrepreneurship [SE] is one genre of entrepreneurship which has the potential to address the operational and financial sustainability challenges experienced by NPOs as a means of enabling sustainable social impact. As an evolving field of study built on practitioners’ works, SE suffers from definitional ambiguities. The comparative analysis between the four schools of thought on SE resulted in the acceptance of EMES schools of thought on SE, such as being most aligned to entrepreneurship. The literature is relatively silent on the importance of NPOs’ operational sustainability, focusing on NPOs’ financial sustainability and social impact; an incomplete coverage of NPOs’ sustainability. Entrepreneurial actions, supported by business management, financial and accountability strategies, i.e. SE strategies, result in NPOs’ operational and financial sustainability, enabling sustainable social value creation or social impact—the central premise of SE. While the examination of the literature on SE in practice supported this position, operating business-like is a novel concept for NPOs; thus, this chapter detailed the SE strategies and associated operating practices as a guide for NPOs’ actions.
Chapter
This maiden chapter introduces the book’s central themes, establishing context, rationale, and structure. It introduces the fundamental concepts of social entrepreneurship [SE], tracing the intellectual and conceptual roots by leveraging theories and concepts associated with entrepreneurship and business management, concluding that social entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship in the social sector. Demonstrating the functional similarities between a business and a nonprofit organisation [NPO], the chapter supports the advocated position that SE is entrepreneurial and business-like actions supported by earned income, enabling NPOs’ operational sustainability while creating social value. Emphasising entrepreneurship concepts distinguishes social entrepreneurs from social workers who also operate in the social sector. Recognising the limitation of developing countries, particularly small islands like the Caribbean, it explores the relevance of SE concepts in a developing context.
Thesis
Full-text available
Pakistan is blessed with an enormous maritime potential as a coastal nation in the world. However, the country failed to gain economically and prosper because of a lack of understanding about the benefits of the maritime sector, in particular, the shipbuilding sector i.e.’ mother industry’. Besides the economic gains, the domestic shipping sector also could not expand and avail repair facilities due to the non-existence of commercial shipbuilding and repair facilities in the country. The failure is a combined effect of the lack of the political resolve of the governments and the absence of a policy for facilitating the commercial shipbuilding sector. The sole shipyard of Pakistan was established as Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works in 1957. Pakistan continued to reap the benefits of constructing commercial ships by KSEW till 1990 however, thereafter, the sole shipyard could not attract the commercial customers due lacking modernization & technologies, geographical limitations, and withdrawal of subsidies to the shipyard. Resultantly, KSEW lost the commercial market space for shipbuilding and repair activities for the domestic and foreign shipping sectors. The agony of economic loss increased manifold as Pakistan failed to establish the second shipbuilding industry since 1957. In the last two decades, the governments did plan the project of the establishment of the second Shipbuilding Industry in Pakistan. However, the project remained restricted to the planning stage despite the announcement of the project in 2007. The delay of the project substantiates the lack of political will and continental mindset of the decision-makers that failed to understand the importance of the strategic industry. Though the shipbuilding industry encompassing ship repairs facilities is a high cost and technology-intensive industry yet, the coastal nations with a suitable geographical and strategic location like Pakistan cannot avoid the establishment of a project for long term benefits. Pakistan spends $5billion in foreign exchange annually on seaborne trade due to the limited capacity of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC). Similarly, a large amount of foreign exchange is also consumed on the repair/ maintenance requiring special docking due to the absence of such a facility in Pakistan. The main aim of the research is to analyze the significance of the establishment of a Shipbuilding Industry at Gwadar for enhancing maritime relevance in the region and boosting the economy of Pakistan. The phase-wise development of the industry is likely to strengthen Pakistan through the generation of employment, development of the maritime cluster, social uplift of the area, production of commercial vessels, management of repair & maintenance activities of PNSC vessels, and above all supplementing the Gwadar port operations. The research also seeks to ascertain the challenges likely to be experienced by Pakistan in the establishment of new shipbuilding industry and the possibility of development through international joint ventures. Today, CPEC has provided a great opportunity to strengthen the process of industrialization in Pakistan. The project has also appeared as a successful international Joint Venture that has turned into a win-win situation for China and Pakistan. Considering, the strong base of the Chinese Shipbuilding Industry, the possibility exists to undertake the Gwadar Shipbuilding Industry project with the assistance of ‘Iron Brother’.
Article
Full-text available
As a result of contemporary culture’s focus on continuous innovation and “change before you have to,” innovation has been identified with economic gains rather than with creating added value for society. At the same time, given current trends related to the automation of business models, workers seem all but destined to be replaced by machines in the labor market. In this context, we attempt to explore whether robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be able to innovate, and the extent to which said activity is exclusively inherent to human nature. Following the need for a more anthropological view of innovation, we make use of MacIntyrean categories to present innovation as a domain-relative practice with creativity and practical wisdom as its corresponding virtues. We explain why innovation can only be understood within a tradition as it implies participating in inquiry about the principle and end of practical life. We conclude that machines and “intelligent” devices do not have the capacity to innovate and they never will. They may replicate the human capacity for creativity, but they squarely lack the necessary conditions to be a locus of virtue or engage with a tradition.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
As a result of the reflection on the reform process of the Industrial Design program at the Universidad de Nariño, the following proposal for the creation of university programs arises. This reflection presents three perspectives to support a university educational project in Design: the regulatory-operational perspective, the conceptual curricular perspective, and the formative-disciplinary perspective. The three perspectives proposed offer a detailed scenario for the creation of new programs taking the Colombian context as a reference, where the last perspective emphasizes a paradigm shift in design education and the concepts of design for transition and research-creation.
Article
Full-text available
Al emprender, la identificación de oportunidades es clave para el desarrollo de un negocio. Sin embargo, el temor al fracaso puede tener un rol decisivo, incluso más en situaciones de crisis como la del covid-19. Este estudio determina a partir de una sólida base de datos de emprendimiento en Colombia (la encuesta de población adulta del GEM, 2020), que existen diferencias en el temor al fracaso entre hombres y mujeres, mas no en la identificación de oportunidades. Se encuentran hallazgos congruentes con la literatura y aportes académicos relacionados mostrando que la relación no ha sufrido variaciones en Colombia por el covid-19.
Article
Full-text available
Se establece, a la luz de un reconocimiento histórico de los distintos paradigmas productivos, el rol que ha jugado el Diseño como instrumento de desarrollo económico y la relación con los fenómenos colectivos derivados de su aporte a la sociedad de consumo. Exponiendo un análisis crítico del individuo como objeto del consumismo y de los productos como símbolo social en provecho de una economía lineal.
Article
There is surely room for improvement in commercial contracting practice. The current contracting evolution often leads to a situation where contracts become increasingly and may be needlessly, complex. The paper discusses how complex contracts evolve and how the proposed legal design approach can bring comprehensibility for tackling complexity in contracting. This approach is providing for various benefits and incentives, such as business sustainability, reduced transaction costs, and competitive business advantage. A novel legal quality metric is introduced. This metric will foster the measuring of quality in the legal profession. The metric, comprehensibility, would better serve both lawyers and clients in measuring the true quality of legal services, processes, and products – than the often used, easily misleading metrics such as time spent, cases won, and hours billed. Through this innovative approach to legal quality metrics, the paper will bring further understanding of the impact of comprehensibility in commercial contracting.
Article
Schumpeter first reviews the basic economic concepts that describe the recurring economic processes of a commercially organized state in which private property, division of labor, and free competition prevail. These constitute what Schumpeter calls "the circular flow of economic life," such as consumption, factors and means of production, labor, value, prices, cost, exchange, money as a circulating medium, and exchange value of money. The principal focus of the book is advancing the idea that change (economic development) is the key to explaining the features of a modern economy. Schumpeter emphasizes that his work deals with economic dynamics or economic development, not with theories of equilibrium or "circular flow" of a static economy, which have formed the basis of traditional economics. Interest, profit, productive interest, and business fluctuations, capital, credit, and entrepreneurs can better be explained by reference to processes of development. A static economy would know no productive interest, which has its source in the profits that arise from the process of development (successful execution of new combinations). The principal changes in a dynamic economy are due to technical innovations in the production process. Schumpeter elaborates on the role of credit in economic development; credit expansion affects the distribution of income and capital formation. Bank credit detaches productive resources from their place in circular flow to new productive combinations and innovations. Capitalism inherently depends upon economic progress, development, innovation, and expansive activity, which would be suppressed by inflexible monetary policy. The essence of development consists in the introduction of innovations into the system of production. This period of incorporation or adsorption is a period of readjustment, which is the essence of depression. Both profits of booms and losses from depression are part of the process of development. There is a distinction between the processes of creating a new productive apparatus and the process of merely operating it once it is created. Development is effected by the entrepreneur, who guides the diversion of the factors of production into new combinations for better use; by recasting the productive process, including the introduction of new machinery, and producing products at less expense, the entrepreneur creates a surplus, which he claims as profit. The entrepreneur requires capital, which is found in the money market, and for which the entrepreneur pays interest. The entrepreneur creates a model for others to follow, and the appearance of numerous new entrepreneurs causes depressions as the system struggles to achieve a new equilibrium. The entrepreneurial profit then vanishes in the vortex of competition; the stage is set for new combinations. Risk is not part of the entrepreneurial function; risk falls on the provider of capital. (TNM)
Book
Knowledge Capitalism probes the surface of contemporary economic and social change, revealing how the shift to a knowledge-based economy is redefining firms, empowering individuals, and reshaping the links between learning and work. Using economic, management and knowledge-based theories, supported by empirical data and illustrations from leading companies, Knowledge Capitalism describes the emergence of a new breed of capitalist, one dependent on knowledge rather than physical resources. The author argues that industrial-era models of firm-market boundaries, work arrangements, and ownership and control are inhibiting firms and individuals success in the emerging knowledge economy. New models are proposed based on knowledge-centred organisation, knowledge-led growth, and knowledge supply as distinct from labour supply or flexible employment. Continuous learning is shown to be critical to firms as integrators of disparate knowledge resources, and the only practical route for individuals to become free agents. Knowledge Capitalism illuminates the new business landscape and provides a practical tool-set for business practitioners and theorists to interpret and manage change in a rapidly deconstructing economic environment.
Schumpeter's view on innovation and entrepreneurship (in:) Management Trends in Theory and Practice
  • K Śledzik
Śledzik K., (2013), Schumpeter's view on innovation and entrepreneurship (in:) Management Trends in Theory and Practice, (ed.) Stefan Hittmar, Faculty of Management Science and Informatics, University of Zilina & Institute of Management by University of Zilina
Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics
  • H Hanush
  • A Pyka
HANUSH, H. and PYKA, A., 2007. Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 857
Opening Doors. The life and Work
  • L Allen R
ALLEN R.L., 1994, Opening Doors. The life and Work of Joseph Schumpeter, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey
The Theory of Economic Development, tenth printing
  • J A Schumpeter
SCHUMPETER, J.A. 1912. The Theory of Economic Development, tenth printing 2004, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey