Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 349–361 | Cite as

The collaborative innovation bloc: A reply to our commentators

  • Niklas ElertEmail author
  • Magnus Henrekson
Original Research

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.

Keywords

Austrian economics Entrepreneurship Innovation Institutions Schumpeterian entrepreneurship Spontaneous order 

JEL classification

B53 D20 G32 L23 L26 O33 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. Christensen, C. M. (2013). The Innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  8. Colander, D., & Freedman, C. (2018). Where economics went wrong: Chicago’s abandonment of classical liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and second-best institutions: Going beyond Baumol’s typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: A reform agenda for the European Union. Cham, CH and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engelhardt, L. (2012). Expansionary monetary policy and decreasing entrepreneurial quality. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 15(2), 172–194.Google Scholar
  13. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: A new theory of the firm. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Gustafsson, A., Gustavsson Tingvall, P., & Halvarsson, D. (2017). Subsidy entrepreneurs. Ratio working paper no. 303. Stockholm: Ratio Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harper, D. A. (2018). Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: An introduction. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(6), 975–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2011). The interaction of entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holcombe, R. A. (2009). The behavioral foundations of Austrian economics. Review of Austrian Economics, 22(4), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London and New York: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCraw, T. K. (2007). Prophet of innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mises, L. v. ([1949] 1998). Human action: A treatise on economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Pennington, M. (2011). Robust political economy: Classical liberalism and the future of public policy. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Rodrik, D. (2008). Second-best institutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Rothbard, M. N. (1970). Power and market: Government and the economy. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews & McMeel.Google Scholar
  32. Sabel, S., & Reddy, S. (2007). Learning to learn: Undoing the Gordian knot of development today. Challenge, 50(5), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salerno, J. T. (1993). Mises and Hayek dehomogenized. Review of Austrian Economics, 6(2), 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Industrial EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations