Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:14:52.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BÖHM-BAWERK’S APPROACH TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2014

Matthew McCaffrey  and
Joseph T. Salerno
Matthew McCaffrey
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Enterprise, Manchester Enterprise Centre, University of Manchester.
Joseph T. Salerno
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics, Pace University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the neglected theory of entrepreneurial profit proposed by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Although historians of thought often dismiss Böhm-Bawerk’s writings on this topic, we argue that he did develop a coherent theory of entrepreneurial decision making and profit distinct from his theory of interest. We first discuss Böhm-Bawerk’s ideas about futurity, uncertainty, and expectations in his theory of goods, which help form the foundation of his theory of entrepreneurship. Further, we connect his notion of uncertainty with his thoughts on money. We then turn to several of Böhm-Bawerk’s ideas about entrepreneurial profit. Entrepreneurs purchase and allocate factors of production; these decisions are speculative because production takes time, and therefore entrepreneurs bear the uncertainty of the market. Their judgment thus yields profits or losses based upon the ability to anticipate the future state of consumer demand. Finally, we discuss the views of several of Böhm-Bawerk’s contemporaries, in order to place his theory in historical context.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 435 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1891. “The Austrian Economists.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1 (Jan): 361–384.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1913a. “Eine “dynamische” Theorie des Kapitalzinses.” Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft, Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung 22: 520–585.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1913b. . “Abschließende Bemerkungen.” Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung 22: 640–657.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. [1884] 1959a. History and Critique of Interest Theories. Translated by Huncke, George D. and Sennholz, Hans F.. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. [1889] 1959b. . Positive Theory of Capital. Translated by Huncke, George D. and Sennholz, Hans F.. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. [1881] 1962. “Whether Legal Rights and Relationships Are Economic Goods.” In Shorter Classics of Böhm-Bawerk: Volume I. South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, pp. 30–138.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1987. Earlier Lectures on Economics by Böhm-Bawerk: A Transcript of “Nationalökonomie Nach Prof. Dr. Eugen von Böhm.” Edited by Tomo, Shigeki. Hitotsubashi: Center for Historical Social Science Literature.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. [1886] 2005. Basic Principles of Economic Value. Translated by Sennholz, Hans F.. Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Cantillon, Richard. [1755] 2001. Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General. Translated by Higgs, Henry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Ellis, Howard S. 1937. German Monetary Theory 1905–1933. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fetter, Frank A. 1915. Economic Principles. New York: The Century Co.Google Scholar
Fillieule, Renaud. 2013. “A Comprehensive Graphical Exposition of the Macroeconomic Theory of Böhm-Bawerk.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2013.792372.Google Scholar
Foss, Nicolai J., and Klein, Peter G.. 2012. Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Roger W. 1999. “Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: Capital, Interest, and Time.” In Holcombe, Randall G., ed., 15 Great Austrian Economists. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
Greidanus, Tjardus. 1932. The Value of Money: A Discussion of Various Monetary Theories and an Exposition of the Yield Theory of Money. London: P.S. King and Son, Ltd.Google Scholar
Hawley, Frederick B. 1892. “The Fundamental Error of 'Kapital und Kapitalzins.'” Quarterly Journal of Economics 6 (3): 280–307.Google Scholar
Hawley, Frederick B. 1900. “Enterprise and Profit.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 15 (1): 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, Robert F. 1985. “Was Richard Cantillon an Austrian Economist?” Journal of Libertarian Studies 7 (2): 269–279.Google Scholar
Hébert, Robert F., and Link, Albert. 1988. The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. Second edition. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Hennings, Klaus H. 1987. “Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk.” In Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter, eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan, pp. 254–259.Google Scholar
Hennings, Klaus H. 1997. The Austrian Theory of Value and Capital: Studies in the Life and Work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. 1967. “A Note on the Bohm-Bawerk/Wicksell Theory of Interest.” Review of Economic Studies 34 (2): 191–199.Google Scholar
Keynes, , Maynard, John. 1964. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1979. “Ludwig von Mises and the Theory of Capital and Interest.” In Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 76–87.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1996. “Introduction.” In Essays on Capital and Interest: An Austrian Perspective. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Frank H. [1921] 1933. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Series of Reprints of Scarce Works on Political Economy No. 16. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank H. 1950. “Introduction.” In Carl Menger, Principles of Economics. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kurz, Heinz D. 2008. “Innovations and Profit: Schumpeter and the Classical Heritage.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 67 (1): 263–278.Google Scholar
Lachmann, Ludwig M. 1977. “Sir John Hicks as a Neo-Austrian.” In Grinder, Walter, ed., Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process: Essays on the Theory of the Market Economy.” Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, pp. 251–266.Google Scholar
MacVane, S. M. 1890. “Boehm-Bawerk on Capital and Wages.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 (1): 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnan de Bornier, Jean. 2008. “The Nature of Boehm-Bawerk’s Capital Market.” Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales Universités d’AixMarseille Working Paper. Available at: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00278521. Accessed 14 October 2013.Google Scholar
Mai, Ludwig H. 1975. Men and Ideas in Economics: A Dictionary of World Economists: Past and Present. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
Marget, Arthur W. 1966. The Theory of Prices: A Re-Examination of the Central Problem of Monetary Theory. Two volumes. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.Google Scholar
Martin, Dolores Tremewan. 1979. “Alternative Views of Mengerian Entrepreneurship.” History of Political Economy 11 (2): 271–285.Google Scholar
Menger, Carl. 1994. Principles of Economics. Translated by Dingwall, James and Hoselitz, Bert F.. Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1998. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, Al: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1978] 2009. Memoirs. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Mixter, Charles W. 1902. “Böhm-Bawerk on Rae.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 16 (3): 385–412.Google Scholar
Pribram, Karl. 1983. A History of Economic Reasoning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1985. “Professor Hébert on Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 7 (2): 281–286.Google Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1987. “Breaking Out of the Walrasian Box: The Cases of Schumpeter and Hansen.” Review of Austrian Economics 1 (1): 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salerno, Joseph T. 1999. “The Place of Human Action in the Development of Modern Economic Thought.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2 (1): 35–65.Google Scholar
Salerno, Joseph T. 2008. “The Entrepreneur: Real and Imagined.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11 (3): 188–207.Google Scholar
Samuels, Warren J. 1983. “The Influence of Friedrich von Wieser on Joseph A. Schumpeter.” History of Economics Society Bulletin 4 (2): 5–19.Google Scholar
Schulak, Eugen-Maria, and Unterköfler, H.. 2011. The Austrian School of Economics: A History of its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions. Translated by Oost-Zinner, Arlene. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1913. “Eine “dynamische” Theorie des Kapitalzinses. Eine Entgegnung.” Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft, Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung 22: 599–639.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Translated by Opie, Redvers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1951] 1989. “Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History.” In Clemence, Richard V., ed., Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 253–271.Google Scholar
Streissler, Erich W. 1990. “The Influence of German Economics on the Work of Menger and Marshall.” In Caldwell, Bruce J., ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 31–68.Google Scholar
Wieser, Friedrich von. 1927. Social Economics. Translated by Ford Hinrichs, A.. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar