1 The author is Professor of Economics, Michigan State University. I am indebted to Carlin, Edward A. and Henderson, John P. for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.Google Scholar

1 Schumpeter, Joseph A., History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 6. Apropos of natural science, Schumpeter undoubtedly understated the role of the past in its development, a matter now clearer after the work of Thomas Kuhn.Google Scholar

2 Harris, Seymour E., ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Suranyi-Unger, Theo, Economics in the Twentieth Century (New York: Norton, 1931), p. 319.Google Scholar

4 It also might be mentioned that Schumpeter grew to adulthood during a period of growing skepticism and pessimism regarding the future of European (not merely Austrian or Austro-Hungarian) civilization.Google Scholar

5 See Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 120, regarding Otto Bauer and Rudolf Hilferding.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 For example, Jacob, Oser, The Evolution of Economic Thought (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 2nd ed., 1970), p. 413.Google Scholar

7 Arthur, Smithies, in Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 18Google Scholar; and Oser, , Economic Thought, p. 413.Google Scholar

8 Hutchison, T. W., A Review of Economic Doctrines, 1870–1929 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 191–192.Google Scholar

9 In Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Seligman, Ben B., Main Currents in Modern Economics (New York: Free Press, 1962), p. 696.Google Scholar

11 In Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 In ibid, p. 41.

13 In ibid, p. 106.

14 Erich, Schneider, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Kuhn, W. E., trans. (Lincoln: Bureau of Business Research, University of Nebraska, 1975), p. 1.Google Scholar

15 In Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Leo, Rogin, The Meaning and Validity of Economic Theory (New York: Harper, 1956), pp. 546–548.Google Scholar

17 Johnston, William M., The Austrian Mind (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), p. 253.Google Scholar

18 Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. ixCrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kuhn, W. E., The Evolution of Economic Thought (Cincinnati: South-Western, 2nd ed., 1970), p. 403Google Scholar. Paul, Samuelson has written: “Being the son of Schumpeter, I am the grandson of Bohm-Bawerk and Menger. Being the son of Leontief, I am the grandson of Bortkiewicz and am the great-grandson of Walras.”Google ScholarSamuelson, Paul A., The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Merton, R. C., ed. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972), vol. 3, p. 684.Google Scholar

19 Haberler, , in Harrison, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, pp. 25–26; and Schneider, Schumpeter, p. 51n.3.Google Scholar

20 Joseph, Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization (New York: Viking Press, 1959), vol. 4, p. 166Google Scholar; and Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, pp. 56, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Suranyi-Unger, , Economics, p. 319; see also pp. 68–70Google Scholar. Also see Hutchison, , Doctrines, p. 192.Google Scholar

22 Seligman, , Main Currents, p. 696.Google Scholar

23 Schumpeter, , History of Economic Analysis, p. 894.Google Scholar

24 Julian, Freund, in Bottomore, Tom and Nisbet, Robert, eds., A History of Sociological Analysis (New York: Basic Books, 1978), p. 183.Google Scholar

25 Coser, Lewis A., Masters of Sociological Thought (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 2nd ed., 1977), p. 424.Google Scholar

26 Hutchison, , Doctrines, p. 191.Google Scholar

27 Sievers, Allen M., Revolution, Evolution, and the Economic Order (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 26.Google Scholar

28 Quoted by Schneider, , in Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 57.Google Scholar

29 Ibid, pp. 54, 57.

30 Ibid, p. 62.

31 Ibid, p. 108.

32 For the view that much of his important later work is “either stated or foreshadowed in his early work,” see Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. ix and also pp. 27, 108, 127 and passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 One also can speculate as to the influence of, or interests shared with, Eugen Ehrlich, a principal figure in the sociology of law and Schumpeter's colleague at Czernowitz (1908–1911). Schumpeter wrote that Ehrlich's legal realism (“studying the actual legal ideas and habits of the people … and in making generalizations from these, rather than the abstractions of jurisprudence …”) was “produced in a small Austrian university under the most unfavorable circumstances imaginable…” Schumpeter, , History of Economic Analysis, p. 794. One suspects at least mutual moral reinforcement if not also substantive influence.Google Scholar

34 Fritz, Machlup, in Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 95Google Scholar; and Haberler, in ibid, p. 29. Schumpeter, Joseph A., Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoreticschen Nationalokonomie (Munchen und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1908), p. ix.Google Scholar

35 Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Hutchison, , op. cit., pp. 191–192.Google Scholar

37 ibid, p. 192. Of course, one cannot expect affinity to mean identity. Thus, for example, although, as Johnston (Austrian Mind, p. 84) notes, both Wieser and Schumpeter shared a “horror of ideology,” the two disagreed as to the significance of the Austrian psychological approach to economics. Suranyi-Unger, , Economics, p. 69Google Scholar, Emil, Kauder, A History of Marginal Utility Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 122Google Scholar; see also “On the Concept of Social Value,” in Schumpeter, Joseph A., Essays, Clemence, Richard V., ed. (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1951), pp. 1ffGoogle Scholar.

38 Schumpeter, , History of Economic Analysis, p. 795n.29Google Scholar. The only reference to Wieser in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, third edition, 1950)Google Scholar is a citation that Wieser, had hinted at the Barone solution in his Natural Value, which first appeared in 1889 (p. 173n.2).Google Scholar

39 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Imperialism and Social Classes, Bert, Hoselitz, ed. (New York: Meridian Books, 1955), pp. ix-x.Google Scholar

40 Gottfried, Haberler to Samuels, Warren J02 24, 1982.Google Scholar

41 Fritz, Machlup to Samuels, Warren J., 03 2, 1982.Google Scholar

42 Howey, Richard S. to Samuels, Warren J., 02 24, 1982.Google Scholar

43 Friedrich, von Wieser, Das Gesetz der Macht (Vienna: Springer, 1926)Google Scholar, translated by W. E. Kuhn, with an Introduction by Samuels, Warren J., as The Law of Power (Lincoln: Bureau of Business Research, University of Nebraska, forthcoming), chapter 12, sec. 5.Google Scholar

44 Ekelund, Robert B., Jr., “Power and Utility: The Normative Economics of Friedrich von Wieser,” Review of Social Economy, vol. 28 (09 1970), pp. 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Schumpeter, , History of Economic Analysis, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

46 Schumpeter, Joseph A., Ten Great Economists (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 301.Google Scholar

47 ibid, p. 301; compare Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, p. 21.

48 Harris, , ed., Schumpeter: Social Scientist, p. 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Schumpeter, , History of Economic Analysis, p. 12.Google Scholar

50 The following discussion is based in part on my Introduction to the translation of Das Gesetz der Macht (supra note 43) and my “A Critique of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy,”Google Scholar to appear in Charles, Wilber, Capitalism and Democracy: Schumpeter Revisited (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar

51 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, pp. 145, 160.Google Scholar

52 Ibid, p. 74.

53 Schumpeter, , Ten Great Economists, p. 217.Google Scholar

54 Friedrich, von Wieser, Natural Value, William, Smart, Trans. (London: Macmillan, 1893Google Scholar; first published as Der Naturliche Werth, 1889), pp. 58–60, 242, and passim. For Schumpeter's view, see his “On the Concept of Social Value,” pp. 2, 4, 6.Google Scholar

55 Jouvenel, Bertrand de, On Power (Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), p. 177.Google Scholar

56 Schumpeter, , Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, op. cit., p. 210.Google Scholar

57 Ibid, p. 211.

58 Ibid, p. 215.

59 Ibid, p. 215.

60 Ibid, p. 302.

61 Ibid, pp. 151, 214.

62 Ibid, pp. 216ff, 379, 385–386.

63 Ibid, p. 355.

64 Ibid, p. 289.

65 Ibid, chapter 19.