IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/martim/1102.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Der Einfluss der deutschen und österreichischen Nationalökonomie auf die Betriebswirtschaftslehre am Beispiel J. A. Schumpeter

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan, Michael

Abstract

Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883-1950) zählt zu den bedeutendsten und einflussreichsten deutschsprachigen Nationalökonomen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Das Wirken des Ökonomen auf die deutsch- und englischsprachige ökonomische Literatur und Forschung ist im Bereich der Volkswirtschaftslehre breit untersucht worden. Schumpeter hat in seinen wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten jedoch auch Themen aufgegriffen, die besondere Relevanz für die Betriebswirtschaftslehre besitzen. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit dem Einfluss der deutschen und österreichischen Nationalökonomie auf die Betriebswirtschaftslehre am Beispiel Schumpeters: Welchen Einfluss hat der Ökonom Schumpeter auf die deutsche Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere in den vergangenen Jahren ausgeübt? Aus dem umfangreichen OEuvre des Nationalökonomen mit österreichischen Wurzeln werden mit den Theorien zur Innovation und zum Unternehmertum zwei Themen aufgegriffen, die in den vergangenen Jahren eine herausgehobene Bedeutung in der BWL erlangt haben. Schumpeter gilt als geistiger Urheber der Innovationsforschung bzw. -lehre und damit für das Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement. Mit seiner differenzierten Betrachtung in Erfindung einerseits und Durchsetzung derselben andererseits beschreibt Schumpeter erstmalig das Konzept der Innovation. Durch seine mikroökonomische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Unternehmertum und der Funktion des Unternehmers begründet Schumpeter schließlich Entrepreneurship als betriebswirtschaftliche Disziplin. Der vorliegende Beitrag legt dar, dass die Unterscheidung zwischen der Funktion des innovierenden Unternehmers und des Trägers der Funktion von Bedeutung ist. Während die Funktion des Unternehmers als grundsätzliches ökonomisches Prinzip unverändert besteht, wechselt der Träger in Abhängigkeit des historischen Kontextes. Während anfänglich noch kleine Familienunternehmen dominieren, führt die Konzernbildung und Konzentration zum Unternehmertypus des Industriekapitäns. Es gibt also immer weniger Raum für den Typ des Einzelunternehmers, den Schumpeter in seinen früheren Arbeiten beschrieben hat.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan, Michael, 2011. "Der Einfluss der deutschen und österreichischen Nationalökonomie auf die Betriebswirtschaftslehre am Beispiel J. A. Schumpeter," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 11-02, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:martim:1102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/77070/1/751408875.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    2. Erik Reinert, 2002. "Schumpeter In The Context Of Two Canons Of Economic Thought," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1-2), pages 23-39.
    3. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valérie Revest & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Financing technology-based small firms in Europe: what do we know?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 179-205, July.
    2. Franco Malerba, 2005. "Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 63-82.
    3. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.
    4. Marion Frenz & Martha Prevezer, 2010. "The impact of technological regimes on patterns of sustained and sporadic innovation activities in UK industries," Working Papers 33, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    5. Stephan, Michael, 2013. "Theorien der Industrieevolution," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 13-03, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    6. Tommy Clausen & Svein Olav Nås & Bart Verspagen, 2007. "Norwegian Innovation and Industrial Structure: Insiders and Outsiders?," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20070610, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    7. Rinaldo Evangelista & Valeria Mastrostefano, 2006. "Firm size, sectors and countries as sources of variety in innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 247-270.
    8. Slavo Radosevic, 2007. "National Systems of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: In Search of a Missing Link," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 73, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    9. Valérie Revest & Sandro Sapio, 2008. "Financing Technology-Based Small Firms in Europe: a review of the empirical evidence," LEM Papers Series 2008/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Mirella Daminai & Fabrizio Pompei, 2008. "Mergers, acquisitions and technological regimes: the European experience over the period 2002-2005," Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia, Finanza e Statistica 46/2008, Università di Perugia, Dipartimento Economia.
    11. Wersching, Klaus, 2010. "Schumpeterian competition, technological regimes and learning through knowledge spillover," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 482-493, September.
    12. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 1998. "Complementarity between technology make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgiam manufacturing firms," Economics Working Papers 279, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Filippo Belloc & Eleonora laurenza & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2015. "Corporate Governance and Sectoral Patterns of Innovation: Evidence from Italian Manufacturing Industries," Department of Economics University of Siena 706, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    14. Davide Consoli & Dioni Elche, 2013. "The evolving knowledge base of professional service sectors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 477-501, April.
    15. Rossi, Federica, 2002. "An introductory overview of innovation studies," MPRA Paper 9106, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2008.
    16. Alfred Kleinknecht, 2017. "Supply-side labour market reforms: a neglected cause of the productivity crisis," Working Papers 0027, ASTRIL - Associazione Studi e Ricerche Interdisciplinari sul Lavoro.
    17. Dosi Giovanni & Gambardella Alfonso & Grazzi Marco & Orsenigo Luigi, 2008. "Technological Revolutions and the Evolution of Industrial Structures: Assessing the Impact of New Technologies upon the Size and Boundaries of Firms," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-49, June.
    18. Klaus Wersching, 2010. "Schumpeterian Competition, Technological Regimes and Learning through Knowledge Spillover," Post-Print hal-00849408, HAL.
    19. Marco Bellucci, 2010. "Fusioni ed acquisizioni: determinanti ed effetti in un confronto europeo," Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia, Finanza e Statistica 80/2010, Università di Perugia, Dipartimento Economia.
    20. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: Evidence from Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1247-1260.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:martim:1102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwmarde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.