IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v37y2013i2p227-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to evaluate creative destruction: reconstructing Schumpeter's approach

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Schubert

Abstract

Economic change, while promoting innovation and growth, at the same time generates 'gales of creative destruction'. It is still largely unclear what this concept implies for the task of assessing welfare (and, correspondingly, the need for and the scope of policy making) in a novelty-generating, knowledge-based economy. Is novelty desirable per se? Is a rise of living standards due to innovation always worth the risks involved? Standard welfare economics is inherently incapable of answering these questions. By examining Joseph Schumpeter's explicit and implicit reasoning on welfare and linking his thoughts to recent ideas, within normative economics, on how to redefine 'well-being' when preferences are variable and inconsistent, we argue that in an evolving economy, well-being should not be conceptualised in static preference-satisfaction terms, but rather in partly procedural terms of 'effective preference learning'. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Schubert, 2013. "How to evaluate creative destruction: reconstructing Schumpeter's approach," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(2), pages 227-250.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:227-250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bes055
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans-Jürgen Engelbrecht, 2015. "A General Model of the Innovation - Subjective Well-Being Nexus," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & John Foster (ed.), The Evolution of Economic and Innovation Systems, edition 127, pages 69-90, Springer.
    2. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    3. Mário Graça Moura, 2017. "Schumpeter and the meanings of rationality," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 115-138, January.
    4. Mário Graça Moura, 2014. "Schumpeter and the meanings of rationality," FEP Working Papers 551, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    5. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2018. "Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 136-153, March.
    6. Komlos John, 2016. "Has Creative Destruction become more Destructive?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, October.
    7. Schubert Christian & Binder Martin, 2014. "Reconciling Normative and Behavioral Economics: An Application of the “Naturalistic Approach” to the Adaptation Problem," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 234(2-3), pages 350-365, April.
    8. Srikant Devaraj & Marcus T. Wolfe & Pankaj C. Patel, 2021. "Creative destruction and regional health: evidence from the US," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 573-604, April.
    9. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2014. "Behavioral public choice: A survey," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 14/03, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    10. Komlos John, 2016. "Has Creative Destruction become more Destructive?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, October.
    11. Félix-Fernando Muñoz & María-Isabel Encinar, 2019. "Some elements for a definition of an evolutionary efficiency criterion," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 919-937, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:cambje:v:37:y:2013:i:2:p:227-250. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.