Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The collaborative innovation bloc: A reply to our commentators

  • Original Research
  • Published:
The Review of Austrian Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are grateful for the comments to our article, and for the opportunity to respond to them. In our original contribution, we argued that the application of the EOE perspective could help make Austrian economics more concrete, relevant and persuasive, especially regarding policy prescriptions. At the heart of this perspective is the idea that entrepreneurship, when construed as the act of building an innovative firm, is an inherently collaborative activity. The comments have strengthened our conviction that the EOE perspective is of value for Austrian economics and been of great help in furthering our thinking on the matter. The comments have also helped us see how the perspective fits in with the broader tradition of Austrian economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not claim to be inventors of the wheel, and readily acknowledge that most of the facts and insights we draw on derive from previous (Austrian and non-Austrian) academic work, which we try to cite to the best of our ability. The suggestions for additional citations from all contributors to this symposium are much appreciated.

  2. Likewise, it is true that U.S. labor markets are largely “deregulated.” Thus, one may wonder why many people have two jobs, adding to commuting distance and undermining loyalty and firm-specific knowledge development. The reason: if you offer somebody a job of 30 h per week or more, the firm has to pay health insurance as long as the firm has at least 25 employees (https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/small-business/are-employers-required-to-offer-health-insurance-in-2019).

  3. Such an analysis is also absent in Foss and Klein’s 2012 book.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, T. M. (2006). The Danish labor market—From excess to shortage. In M. Werding (Ed.), Structural unemployment in Western Europe: Reasons and remedies (pp. 75–106). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bredgaard, T. (2013). Flexibility and security in employment regulation: Learning from Denmark. In K. V. W. Stone & H. Arthurs (Eds.), Rethinking workplace regulation (pp. 213–233). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylund, P. L. (2019). Where is the Austrian theory of collaborative orders? Comment on Elert and Henrekson. Review of Austrian Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00457-w.

  • Christensen, C. M. (2013). The Innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Colander, D., & Freedman, C. (2018). Where economics went wrong: Chicago’s abandonment of classical liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and second-best institutions: Going beyond Baumol’s typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2019). The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics. Review of Austrian Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00455-y.

  • Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: A reform agenda for the European Union. Cham, CH and New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, L. (2012). Expansionary monetary policy and decreasing entrepreneurial quality. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 15(2), 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new theory of the firm. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, K., Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., & Klein, S. K. (2007). The entrepreneurial organization of heterogeneous capital. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1165–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Klein, P. G., & McCaffrey, M. (2019). The entrepreneurship scholar plays with blocs: Collaborative innovation or collaborative judgment? Review of Austrian Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00461-0.

  • Gustafsson, A., Gustavsson Tingvall, P., & Halvarsson, D. (2017). Subsidy entrepreneurs. Ratio working paper no. 303. Stockholm: Ratio Institute.

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. A. (2018). Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: An introduction. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(6), 975–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2011). The interaction of entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. A. (2009). The behavioral foundations of Austrian economics. Review of Austrian Economics, 22(4), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranton, R. (2019). The devil is in the details: Implications of Samuel Bowles’s The Moral Economy for economics and policy research. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, D. S. (2019). The political economy of the collaborative innovation bloc. Review of Austrian Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00454-z.

  • Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London and New York: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, M. (2018). William Baumol’s ‘entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. In G. Javadian, V. K. Gupta, D. K. Dutta, G. C. Guo, A. E. Osorio, & B. Ozkazanc-Pan (Eds.), Foundational research in entrepreneurship studies (pp. 179–201). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCraw, T. K. (2007). Prophet of innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mises, L. v. ([1949] 1998). Human action: A treatise on economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

  • Pennington, M. (2011). Robust political economy: Classical liberalism and the future of public policy. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-best institutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 100–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, M. N. (1970). Power and market: Government and the economy. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews & McMeel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, S., & Reddy, S. (2007). Learning to learn: Undoing the Gordian knot of development today. Challenge, 50(5), 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salerno, J. T. (1993). Mises and Hayek dehomogenized. Review of Austrian Economics, 6(2), 113–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salerno, J. T. (2012). A reformulation of Austrian business cycle theory in light of the financial crisis. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 15(1), 3–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. ([1911] 1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1951 [1949]). Comments on a plan for the study of entrepreneurship. In R. V. Clemence (Ed.), Essays of J. A. Schumpeter. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.

  • Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15, Stockholm, Sweden

    Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson

Authors
  1. Niklas Elert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Henrekson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Elert.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elert, N., Henrekson, M. The collaborative innovation bloc: A reply to our commentators. Rev Austrian Econ 32, 349–361 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00456-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00456-x

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation