Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Kavramlarının İktisadi Düşüncedeki Yeri: Joseph A. Schumpeter
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2013
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Girişimcilik, küreselleşen günümüz dünyasında ekonomik gelişmede rol oynayan en önemli faktörlerden biridir. Girişimcilik ekonomik büyüme ve kalkınmanın motoru, yenilik ve yaratıcılığın kaynağıdır. Ekonomik açıdan girişimciliğin bu artan önemi, ekonomik teoride girişimcinin niteliklerinin ve rolünün ne olduğu ile ilgili bazı soruları da beraberinde getirmektedir. Ekonomik gelişmede girişimcilerin dinamik rolü üzerinde duran ve girişimciyi yenilikleri gerçekleştiren kişi olarak tanımlayan Schumpeter, buluşlar yoluyla girişimcilerin üretime getirdikleri yenilikleri, liberal kapitalist gelişmenin itici gücü olarak kabul etmektedir. Diğer bir ifadeyle Schumpeter teknolojik yenilikleri ve girişimcilik faaliyetlerini statik ekonominin üretken kaynaklarını dinamik yeniliklere aktaran güçler olarak ele alır. Girişimciliğin yenilikçi faaliyetleri olarak ifade edilen bu gelişmeler ilk olarak Schumpeter tarafından ele alınmakla birlikte girişimcilik ve yenilikçilik kavramları farklı iktisat okulları tarafından farklı şekillerde yorumlanmıştır.Bu çalışma ilk olarak iktisadi düşünce tarihinde girişimciliğin ve yenilikçiliğin teorik temellerini oluşturan yorumları inceledikten sonra Schumpeter’in yenilikçi girişimci analizini irdelemektedir.
Entrepreneurship is one of the most important factors that play a role in economic development in today's globalized world.Entrepreneurship is an engine of economic growth and development and a source of innovation and creativity. Economically, the growing importance of entrepreneurship raises some questions about what is the entrepreneur’s qualifications and it’s role in the economic theory. Because physiocrat thought emerged in a period, when agriculture became dominant and industrial revolution did not change world economy completely, it mostly emphasized agricultural entrepreneur in its thoughts related to entrepreneurship. The definition of entrepreneurship was made by R. Cantillon, physiocrat thinker, as a person buying and producing the production inlets to sell from undetermined price. Thus, Cantillon, relating the enterprise to risk element, emphasizes the feature of entrepreneurs to undertake risk in the face of uncertainty. Beside risk element, those emphasizing the importance of entrepreneur form other viewpoints are under consideration. For example, Beaudeu attracted attention to planning and organization. Definition of entrepreneur, being developed J.B.Say after R. Cantillon, it was emphasized that the entrepreneur should have the attribution to organize and manage production inlets. In other words, according to J.B.Say, entrepreneur is a person undertaken the coordination role in both production and distribution and marketing stages. Classical economists did not sufficiently madethe distinction between entrepreneur who undertakes risk, combines production factors, and searches the possibility of innovation and capitalist who only provides tool for investment and as a result, equated the entrepreneur with capitalist. The reason for this is that classic economists have the belief that all changes and movements in the market will be known by all market actors. In view of this, they accept all human beings wanting to maximize their interests as entrepreneur. Because the situation is so, classical economists did not give a distinct role for entrepreneur. According to A.Marshall, from the pioneer of neoclassic economics, entrepreneur is a person producing goods and services as well as performing supervision functions in the firm and while making these, undertaking risk. In Neoclassic school, entrepreneurship remained limited with the function to bring together and protecting the individual against the risk of future. Neoclassic model, with production function, rational choices, and the assumption of perfect information it has did charged a little mission to the entrepreneur. In this model, firm can run itself. In the studies carried out on the entrepreneurship, Austrian economics school that accounts for market process on the base of human action has a distinct place. In this frame, I. Kirzner made the most important contribution about market process and entrepreneurship. In market process, the emergence of profit depends on the activity of entrepreneur. Krizner shaped the definition of entrepreneurship around the concepts of awareness, learning new things, and realizing innovation. The studies on the concept innovation and its effect on growth gained acceleration, especially after Second World War. For innovation, in short, expressed as transforming an opinion to the production, there are very different definitions. Adam Smith, a classical economist, says that there is division of work in the foundation of wealth of countries and technological innovations emerged as a result of division of work. According to Smith, the mechanism providing growth is division of work. Therefore, Smith, unlike from Schumpeter, did not give any place to the entrepreneur, who generally acquired capital, borrowing in the form of credit and thus revealing the opportunities. In Neoclassical understanding, innovativeness was handled as a driving force on the back of growth and evaluated as externality. The opinions of Marshall leaded to evolutionist opinions to emerge and provided possibility to understand the processes of specialization and nonstructural change based on the interaction between heterogeneousness, complementariness and competition characterizing the process of innovation Evolutionist economists, with the concepts they developed, brought the new openings to the previous discussions in the literature of economics. Evolutionary economics became successful in introducing the superficiality of assumptions of traditional industrial competition theories such as that firms have the identical cost conditions and no firm has informational and organizational advantage. Until this moment, the opinions of schools related to the concepts entrepreneurship and innovativeness throughout history of economics have been attempted to be summarized. However, the person who makes most contribution to these concepts and has a great influence in accessing of the concepts entrepreneurship and innovativeness to the theory of economics is certainly J.A. Schumpeter. Schumpeter, who stands on the dynamic role of entrepreneurs in economic development and defines the entrepreneur as someone who has taken the innovations, defined entrepreneurs bring innovations in production through discoveries as the driving force of liberal capitalist development. In other words, Schumpeter treats technological innovation and entrepreneurial activity as forces which transfer productive resources of the static economy to dynamic innovations. Schumpeter generally shaped the issue of entrepreneurship around the concept innovativeness. According to Schumpeter, the way of being able to be to become entrepreneur passes from introducing the opinion or innovation, nor realized earlier, from not having the owner of business enterprise or capital. Entrepreneurship directing the existing resources from the old businesses from the more effective and new businesses is the essence of modern economy. Schumpeter who brings forward that entrepreneur will lead to a process called “creative destruction”, generating new combinations and upsetting the balance in economy, makes the issue connected to the innovation. Schumpeter, beside labor, capital, and natural resources, emphasized the importance of entrepreneur, fourth production factor. According to Schumpeter, the essence of entrepreneurship is innovation. In other words, those making leadership to the innovations are dynamic entrepreneurs. Schumpeter, emphasizing the unique relationship between entrepreneur and innovation, ın contrast to a number of earlier theory, charged an important role on the entrepreneur in the process of economic development. Schumpeterian entrepreneur, thanks to the innovations he/she made, is a person carrying the economy to the better and higher balance point, receiving it from a balance point. This activity is expressed as the entrepreneurship’s innovative developments firstly is taken by Schumpeter but also concepts of entrepreneurship and innovation are interpreted in different ways by different schools of economics. This study firstly reviews comments on the theoretical basics of entrepreneurship and innovation in the history of economic thought, then explores the innovative entrepreneur analysis of Schumpeter.
Entrepreneurship is one of the most important factors that play a role in economic development in today's globalized world.Entrepreneurship is an engine of economic growth and development and a source of innovation and creativity. Economically, the growing importance of entrepreneurship raises some questions about what is the entrepreneur’s qualifications and it’s role in the economic theory. Because physiocrat thought emerged in a period, when agriculture became dominant and industrial revolution did not change world economy completely, it mostly emphasized agricultural entrepreneur in its thoughts related to entrepreneurship. The definition of entrepreneurship was made by R. Cantillon, physiocrat thinker, as a person buying and producing the production inlets to sell from undetermined price. Thus, Cantillon, relating the enterprise to risk element, emphasizes the feature of entrepreneurs to undertake risk in the face of uncertainty. Beside risk element, those emphasizing the importance of entrepreneur form other viewpoints are under consideration. For example, Beaudeu attracted attention to planning and organization. Definition of entrepreneur, being developed J.B.Say after R. Cantillon, it was emphasized that the entrepreneur should have the attribution to organize and manage production inlets. In other words, according to J.B.Say, entrepreneur is a person undertaken the coordination role in both production and distribution and marketing stages. Classical economists did not sufficiently madethe distinction between entrepreneur who undertakes risk, combines production factors, and searches the possibility of innovation and capitalist who only provides tool for investment and as a result, equated the entrepreneur with capitalist. The reason for this is that classic economists have the belief that all changes and movements in the market will be known by all market actors. In view of this, they accept all human beings wanting to maximize their interests as entrepreneur. Because the situation is so, classical economists did not give a distinct role for entrepreneur. According to A.Marshall, from the pioneer of neoclassic economics, entrepreneur is a person producing goods and services as well as performing supervision functions in the firm and while making these, undertaking risk. In Neoclassic school, entrepreneurship remained limited with the function to bring together and protecting the individual against the risk of future. Neoclassic model, with production function, rational choices, and the assumption of perfect information it has did charged a little mission to the entrepreneur. In this model, firm can run itself. In the studies carried out on the entrepreneurship, Austrian economics school that accounts for market process on the base of human action has a distinct place. In this frame, I. Kirzner made the most important contribution about market process and entrepreneurship. In market process, the emergence of profit depends on the activity of entrepreneur. Krizner shaped the definition of entrepreneurship around the concepts of awareness, learning new things, and realizing innovation. The studies on the concept innovation and its effect on growth gained acceleration, especially after Second World War. For innovation, in short, expressed as transforming an opinion to the production, there are very different definitions. Adam Smith, a classical economist, says that there is division of work in the foundation of wealth of countries and technological innovations emerged as a result of division of work. According to Smith, the mechanism providing growth is division of work. Therefore, Smith, unlike from Schumpeter, did not give any place to the entrepreneur, who generally acquired capital, borrowing in the form of credit and thus revealing the opportunities. In Neoclassical understanding, innovativeness was handled as a driving force on the back of growth and evaluated as externality. The opinions of Marshall leaded to evolutionist opinions to emerge and provided possibility to understand the processes of specialization and nonstructural change based on the interaction between heterogeneousness, complementariness and competition characterizing the process of innovation Evolutionist economists, with the concepts they developed, brought the new openings to the previous discussions in the literature of economics. Evolutionary economics became successful in introducing the superficiality of assumptions of traditional industrial competition theories such as that firms have the identical cost conditions and no firm has informational and organizational advantage. Until this moment, the opinions of schools related to the concepts entrepreneurship and innovativeness throughout history of economics have been attempted to be summarized. However, the person who makes most contribution to these concepts and has a great influence in accessing of the concepts entrepreneurship and innovativeness to the theory of economics is certainly J.A. Schumpeter. Schumpeter, who stands on the dynamic role of entrepreneurs in economic development and defines the entrepreneur as someone who has taken the innovations, defined entrepreneurs bring innovations in production through discoveries as the driving force of liberal capitalist development. In other words, Schumpeter treats technological innovation and entrepreneurial activity as forces which transfer productive resources of the static economy to dynamic innovations. Schumpeter generally shaped the issue of entrepreneurship around the concept innovativeness. According to Schumpeter, the way of being able to be to become entrepreneur passes from introducing the opinion or innovation, nor realized earlier, from not having the owner of business enterprise or capital. Entrepreneurship directing the existing resources from the old businesses from the more effective and new businesses is the essence of modern economy. Schumpeter who brings forward that entrepreneur will lead to a process called “creative destruction”, generating new combinations and upsetting the balance in economy, makes the issue connected to the innovation. Schumpeter, beside labor, capital, and natural resources, emphasized the importance of entrepreneur, fourth production factor. According to Schumpeter, the essence of entrepreneurship is innovation. In other words, those making leadership to the innovations are dynamic entrepreneurs. Schumpeter, emphasizing the unique relationship between entrepreneur and innovation, ın contrast to a number of earlier theory, charged an important role on the entrepreneur in the process of economic development. Schumpeterian entrepreneur, thanks to the innovations he/she made, is a person carrying the economy to the better and higher balance point, receiving it from a balance point. This activity is expressed as the entrepreneurship’s innovative developments firstly is taken by Schumpeter but also concepts of entrepreneurship and innovation are interpreted in different ways by different schools of economics. This study firstly reviews comments on the theoretical basics of entrepreneurship and innovation in the history of economic thought, then explores the innovative entrepreneur analysis of Schumpeter.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Girişimcilik, Yenilikçilik, İktisadi düşünce, J.A.Schumpeter, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Economic history
Kaynak
Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
Sayı
29
Künye
Er, P. H., (2013). Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Kavramlarının İktisadi Düşüncedeki Yeri: Joseph A. Schumpeter. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 75-85.
