The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship

The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship

Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost

Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed

–and What to Do about It, by Josh Lerner

The Invention of Enterprise: Entrepreneurship from Ancient

Mesopotamia to Modern Times, edited by David S. Landes,

Joel Mokyr, and William J. Baumol

The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a

More Connected World, by Amar Bhidé

The Microtheory of

Innovative Entrepreneurship

WILLIAM J. BAUMOL

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Princeton and Oxford

Copyright © 2010 by Princeton University Press

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to Permissions, Princeton University Press

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,

Princeton, New Jersey 08540

In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street,

Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Baumol, William J.

The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship / William J. Baumol.

p.      cm.      ―(The Kauffman Foundation series on innovation and entrepreneurship)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-691-14584-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Entrepreneurship. I. Title.

HB615.B398 2009

338’.0401—dc22

2009047823

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

Published in collaboration with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

and the Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial Studies of New York University

This book has been composed in Stone Serif

Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

press.princeton.edu

Printed in the United States of America

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

To my colleagues at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei

CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables

Preface    The Innovative Entrepreneur in Dynamic Microtheory

INTRODUCTION    Bringing Entrepreneurship and Innovation into the Theory of Value

CHAPTER 1      Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory: Reasons for Its Absence and Goals for Its Restoration

PART I          PRICING, REMUNERATION, AND ALLOCATION OF THE AGENTS OF INNOVATION

CHAPTER 2      Toward Characterization of the Innovation Industry: The David-Goliath Symbiosis

CHAPTER 3      Entrepreneurship, Invention, and Pricing: Toward Static Microtheory

CHAPTER 4      Oligopolistic Red Queen Innovation Games, Mandatory Price Discrimination, and Markets in Innovation

PART II        WELFARE THEORY: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, IMITATION, AND CREATIVE DESTRUCTION

CHAPTER 5      Optimal Innovation Spillovers: The Growth-Distribution Trade-off

CHAPTER 6      Enterprising Technology Dissemination: Toward Optimal Transfer Pricing and the Invaluable Contribution of Mere Imitation

CHAPTER 7      The Entrepreneur and the Beneficial Externalities of Creative Destruction

PART III       INSTITUTIONS, PAYOFFS, AND THE ENTREPRENEUR’S CHOICE OF ACTIVITY: HISTORICAL ORIGINS

CHAPTER 8      Economic Warfare as a Red Queen Game: The Emergence of Productive Entrepreneurship

CHAPTER 9      On the Origins of Widespread Productive Entrepreneurship

CHAPTER 10    The Allocation of Entrepreneurship Does Matter

CHAPTER 11    Mega-enterprising Redesign of Governing Institutions: Keystone of Dynamic Microtheory

CHAPTER 12    Summing Up: Yes, the Theory of Entrepreneurship Is on Its Way

Notes

References

Index

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

FIGURE I.1       Hypothetical Progress, 1900–2000: Elimination of Monopoly Power vs. Innovation

FIGURE I.2       GDP Per Capita, 1500–1998: China, Italy, and the United Kingdom

FIGURE I.3       Annual Real GDP Growth, 1972–2007: China, Italy, and the United Kingdom

FIGURE 2.1       Real U.S. Private R&D Expenditures, 1953–1998

FIGURE 3.1       Price Discriminatory Equilibrium: R&D Expenditure in Two Markets

FIGURE 3.2       Total Cost and Revenue with and without Price Discrimination

FIGURE 4.1       Average Economic Returns of 1,000 Large U.S. Firms, 1996–2005

FIGURE 4.2       Oligopoly Equilibrium in R&D Expenditure

FIGURE 4.3       Real U.S. Private R&D Expenditures, 1953–1998

FIGURE 5.1       Locus of Non-Lump-Sum Pareto Optima

FIGURE 5.2       Spillover Ratio, Optimality, and Equilibrium

FIGURE 5.3       Benefits as a Function of Spillover Ratio

TABLES

TABLE I.1       Rise in Real Per Capita GDP, 1900–2001

TABLE 2.1       Some Important Innovations by U.S. Small Firms in the Twentieth Century

TABLE 4.1       Payoff Matrix for an Innovation Arms Race, Simplest Form

TABLE 4.2       Payoff Table for an Innovation Arms Race, Kinked Revenue Scenario

TABLE 11.1     Total Spending on Lobbying Activities, 1998–2009

TABLE 11.2     Top 20 Spenders on Lobbying, 1998–2009

PREFACE

The Innovative Entrepreneur in Dynamic Microtheory

In Italy, the Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize is the highest award offered to a non-Italian scientist. The award is decided and governed by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, the oldest academic honorary society in the world, an institution founded in 1604 and of which Galileo Galilei was one of the founders.

In 2005, the Feltrinelli International Prize for Contributions to Economic and Social Sciences was awarded to Professor William J. Baumol, a member of the Accademia, at a ceremony in Rome. At that meeting, Professor Baumol addressed the members of Lincei, and that lecture, considerably expanded, became the basis of this book.1

I was led to begin work on this book in 2005, when I prepared my talk for the award of the Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize for Economic and Social Sciences at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, the oldest of the world’s learned societies, in Rome. In connection with this honor, I will always be indebted to my friend Professor Luigi Pasinetti, to whose efforts I must accredit the award, gratitude thereby added to my admiration of his work.

This book can be described as my third try—my once-more reiterated attempt to bring systematic growth theory into the domain of microeconomics, from which it is now largely excluded. As I will argue in the introduction, in terms of the comparative importance of static and dynamic analysis, as evaluated in terms of the welfare implications of microeconomics, the current literature has the matter standing on its head. The really important part of the story of economic well-being is all but banished from the literature. In particular, the near total omission of innovative entrepreneurs and their role is a major element in this curious state of affairs.

Thus, the main conviction underlying this book is that the absence of micro growth theory from available scholarship on welfare economics leaves us with a crucial gap. There is a second conviction here, as well—that growth analysis requires a combination of two indispensable approaches: macroeconomic and microeconomic. Happily, a very substantial macro analysis is already available. But many of the decisions that primarily affect growth are made by individuals and individual firms. For that reason, the choices of the individual inventor, the individual entrepreneur, and the management of a firm that may spend heavily on R&D are surely at the heart of the subject. We are beginning to accumulate an invaluable body of empirical evidence on these matters, but the formal theory is still virtually nonexistent. The objective of this book is to show a promising way to begin filling this enormous gap.

I have already written about some of the subject matter covered in this book, so it seems appropriate to reproduce some of these earlier materials, suitably editing rather than completely rewriting discussions of topics on which I have little new to say. For this repetition, I trust I will be forgiven. This time, however, I finally may have gotten the story right, or rather, may at last be able to provide an outline of the entire story. Before closing this preface, I follow custom with my expressions of gratitude. Those I have given in the past were, I am convinced, richly deserved, but never so much as the two that appear here. For I will single out one organization and one individual to whom my debt is unequalled.

The organization is the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, which has, of course, provided financing. But more than that, it has brought me friends, colleagues, and even coauthors. The pleasure of working with them has been a unique experience, and I look forward to its continuation. Given the commendable objectives of the foundation and the efficacy with which it pursues them, I can only be proud of and delighted with our association.

There are others to whom I owe great debts for constructive comments and suggestions. They include Professors Magnus Henrekson, Albert Lee, Simon Parker, and Mirjam van Praag—good friends and colleagues. They have stimulated my ideas, caught my errors, and added to the substance of my discussion. It is a pleasure, albeit meager reimbursement, to recognize their valuable assistance. At Princeton University Press, I wish to thank our editorial team, Seth Ditchik, senior editor; Sara Lerner, production editor; Janie Chan, editorial associate; and Richard Isomaki, copyeditor, with whom it was always a pleasure to work. Similarly, I owe many thanks to Konrad Grabiszewski, who saved me from error in the book’s figures and equations, and to Aurite Werman, who gave up a summer to help by providing data that were more current and illuminating. And, finally, there is the substantive contribution of Zoltan Acs, who permitted me to build on one of his as yet unpublished ideas—philanthropy by entrepreneurs that creates and sustains programs, such as scholarships, that provide vital assistance to future entrepreneurs.

Most of all, I am indebted to Janeece Lewis and Anne Noyes Saini, who are best described as my partners-in-crime and without whom completion of this volume would have been immeasurably more difficult. Anne, who has recently become a co-worker in my enterprises and therefore has not been mentioned previously in my writings, has accomplished much more than sanitization of my grammar—her insight and capability have rightly elicited my admiration and feelings of friendship. Together, we three have become a team that works together most effectively and imparts pleasure to our activities.

The circumstances, however, call me to a far less happy task—to say some words about my late and beloved colleague, Sue Anne Batey Blackman. I was her partner for well over two decades. Now I constantly miss the contributions stemming from her intelligence, her ingenuity, and her love and mastery of language. But much more than all of that, I miss her as a person—calm, rational, delightful, always wanted, and always there when needed. Only the Bard can provide suitable words to describe Sue Anne: Her life was gentle, and the elements / So mix’d in her that Nature might stand up and say to all the world, ‘this was a woman!’

Permission to reprint is hereby gratefully acknowledged for previously published extracts of this text. Portions of chapter 2 appeared in the Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance and Business Ventures, the official publication of the Academy of Entrepreneurial Finance (Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Growth: The David-Goliath Symbiosis, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 1–10); portions of chapters 3 and 4 are taken from Entrepreneurship and Invention: Toward Their Microeconomic Value Theory, an AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies report (Baumol 2005); and excerpts from an article published in the Journal of Political Economy (Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive, vol. 98, no. 5, part 1, pp. 893–921, © 1990 by The University of Chicago) have been incorporated in chapters 9 and 10. The Von Mises epigraph in chapter 1 is taken from Human Action (Von Mises 1940, p. 270); the Dana epigraph in chapter 3 appeared in the Journal of Political Economy (vol. 106, no. 2, p. 395, Advance-Purchase Discounts and Price Discrimination in Competitive Markets, by J. D. Dana, © 1998 by The University of Chicago Press); the Okun epigraph in chapter 5 is taken from Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff (Okun 1975, pp. 46–47), courtesy of the Brookings Institution Press; the Marx and Engels epigraph in chapter 7 is taken from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx and Engels 1976, vol. 6, p. 487); the Schumpeter epigraph also in chapter 7 appeared in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Schumpeter 1947, p. 83); and the Jones epigraph in chapter 8 was previously published in France (Jones 1994, p. 130). Table 2.1 appeared in The State of Small Business: A Report of the President, 1994 (1995, p. 114) and is reprinted here courtesy of The Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration; tables 11.1 and 11.2 are taken from the website of the Center for Responsive Politics (Opensecrets.org); and figure 4.1 was previously published in a 2009 working paper by Michael A. Williams and Kevin Kreitzman, Estimating Market Power with Economic Profits, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1167823.

The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship

INTRODUCTION

Bringing Entrepreneurship and Innovation into the Theory of Value

I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids—and I might even be said to possess a mind.

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. . . . When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination—indeed, everything and anything except me.

—Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952, 3)

THE INVISIBLE ENTREPRENEUR

My belief, delusory or not, is that I provide here the first quasi-formal, theoretical analysis of the role and activities of the innovative entrepreneur—an entrée into the elementary theory of value.1 Through this book, I hope to introduce innovative entrepreneurship into the accepted body of mainstream microtheory.

However, this effort should also not be taken to imply that there exists no valuable research on the subject, or even that nontheoretical work on this topic is lacking. On the contrary, there is a profuse and rapidly growing body of empirical research—much of it imaginative, highly competent, and illuminating.2 This work has begun to show, for example, the type of person most likely to become an innovating entrepreneur, the sources of financing available for this entrepreneurial activity, the institutional arrangements that stimulate it, the economic value of entrepreneurship, and a good deal more.3

In addition, as the reader need hardly be reminded, there is an invaluable macroeconomic literature on economic growth, stemming from the work of Robert Solow and including the writings of Paul Romer and Robert Lucas and, more recently, the outstanding volume by Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt (1998). In these macrotheoretic writings, entrepreneurs usually lurk in the background—largely concealed, but present under certain interpretations. Finally, there also is a considerable body of microtheoretic work in the arena of invention, including the pathbreaking analyses of Karl Shell.

It is clear, then, that work much more profound than mine has been provided by others in more sophisticated and advanced theories of innovation that have indirect implications for the theory of entrepreneurship. Even more extensive is the fine body of empirical work on the subject provided by economists and sociologists, among others. But despite the existing literature and near universal acknowledgment of the entrepreneur’s crucial contribution to economic growth and the general welfare, theoretical material on entrepreneurship has not yet become a required component of all training in microtheory, nor has it become a mandatory portion of every elementary textbook. In fact, the word fails to appear in the indices of many such textbooks.

Thus, even the valuable empirical and theoretical work in the microeconomic arena, to which I have just alluded, does not meet the goals of this book, for it lies outside the mainstream of basic microtheory. The theory of entrepreneurship does not go totally unrecognized or unappreciated in discussions of growth, but it remains relegated to the suburbs of the microeconomic literature. As things stand, few of us who teach economics, in designing a one-semester course on the theory of the firm, would be expected to assign much time to the writings noted in the previous paragraphs. Although few deny the importance of the entrepreneurs and many acknowledge their critical role, they are almost entirely excluded from our standard theoretical models of the firm.

There are obvious reasons why this state of affairs should be considered curious. Entrepreneurs seem to be widely recognized as prime contributors to economic progress. However, it also should be obvious that the current state of economic welfare and standard of living in industrialized economies owes vastly more to the market mechanism’s past growth performance than it does to any static efficiency contributions for which it is arguably responsible. Thus, there is little reason to expect the need for the work of entrepreneurs to diminish substantially in the foreseeable future. Despite this, our lectures on microtheory of the firm and its contribution to economic welfare focus almost exclusively on the static side of the latter. Surely, something here is out of order.

The nearly exclusive focus by welfare economics literature on those market failures that are static in character—monopoly, externalities of the type usually cited, inadequate output of public goods, and the like—is entirely indefensible because it neglects the welfare implication of micro activities related to economic growth. The result is, arguably, a serious misallocation of classroom time and textbook space, in which a markedly excessive share is allotted to the stationary analysis, as will be argued next.

Table 1.1

Rise in Real Per Capita GDP, 1900–2001

Source: Maddison 2003.

GROWTH: THE SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF ENHANCED GENERAL WELFARE

It seems not very difficult to indicate, albeit in imperfectly rigorous terms, something a bit more specific about the relative importance of the statics and dynamics of policy for the economic well-being of the general public. For this purpose, let us begin by taking note of some important data estimates: the evaluation of the magnitude of growth in per capita income. Perhaps the most conservative estimate of the rate of expansion of per capita real income in the past century is offered by Maddison (2003), who reports that this increased nearly sevenfold in the United States—surely an impressive number (see table I.1). Roughly speaking, this means that in 1900, average per capita income was a bit more than $5,000 per year (in 2000 dollars)—a standard of living that is virtually impossible to comprehend today. Several other estimates of twentieth-century growth are far higher. Alan Greenspan, for example—who is not noted for exaggeration in his data estimates, is reported by DeLong (2000) to have concluded that the true figure is something like a thirtyfold rise.

In order to analyze what this implies for our subject, I will employ a conservative approach, taking the lower (near sevenfold) multiplication to be correct. Figure I.1 represents such an increase via two hypothetical production-possibility frontiers, XY and X′Y′ (in two commodities). The frontiers are drawn as replicas of one another, except that X′Y′ is magnified sevenfold and, therefore, placed seven times as far from the origin as XY. The frontier of 1900 is represented by XY, while X′Y′ signifies that of 2000.

FIGURE I.1

Hypothetical Progress, 1900–2000: Elimination of Monopoly Power vs. Innovation

Next, consider what a plausible increase in static efficiency could possibly have contributed to welfare, starting from the earlier date. We can, of course, take as the hypothetical initial position any point below the 1900 frontier, XY. However, in order to remain conservative, I select point A, which lies well below the 1900 frontier, as the initial position of the economy. This is a conservative assumption in that static inefficiency is taken to be implausibly enormous, leaving extensive room for improvement via static efficiency contributing measures. That is, under this premise, any move from A to anywhere on the XY frontier must be feasible.

In contrast, a sevenfold increase in every output from point A, permitted by the twentieth-century growth performance, brings us all the way from point A to point B—well beyond the 1900 frontier, XY. The disparity between the possible static change and the change made possible by growth is apt to be huge because the largest possible improvement in welfare at that date cannot take us any higher than some point on the (very low) 1900 boundary, which determines the maximal improvement technologically feasible at that time.

It is also illuminating to consider the implications of an alternative, initial 1900 position, point A′, that already represents a state of relatively abundant welfare for that time, since A′ lies very close to the 1900 frontier. Because point A′ has far greater proximity to the 1900 frontier, as compared with point A, A′ will have far greater static efficiency than A. With initial point A′, the disparity between a move to the static frontier and the alternative contribution of growth to corresponding point B′ of year 2000 is enormously larger than that permitted by point A. This is because point A′ is already close to the frontier, so there is comparatively little room for contribution by static-efficiency increasing measures. Thus, my choice of A as the illustrative initial position can indeed be considered conservative.

In other words, if we take the position of those who believe that the performance of the unconstrained market is reasonably close to optimality, then there is necessarily an enormous excess of the welfare contribution offered by growth over anything a set of static programs can possibly provide.

The empirical evidence we do have appears to suggest that point A′ in the graph is much closer to a true depiction of reality than point A. Although it has elicited a fair amount of criticism and reservations, the most noted evidence on the subject is that provided in Harberger’s classic discussion (1954, 524), which concludes that elimination of resource misallocation in American manufacturing in the late twenties would bring with it an improvement in consumer welfare of little more than a tenth of a percent [!] in present value. This welfare gain would amount to about $2.00 per capita. This astonishing estimate suggests that even point A′ in the graph is far further from the frontier than it would be in reality.

More conservative studies raise the estimated figure for static efficiency gains from antitrust and regulatory activities, alone, to about 1 percent of GDP. This is easily shown to mean that, if we had completely eliminated all market failure attributable to imperfect competition, but the economy had failed to grow, the accumulated year-by-year gains from eliminating monopolistic distortions would have added up to about $5,000 per person over the entire twentieth century. The opportunity cost, in the form of the foregone accumulation of the benefits of growth (adding together the year-by-year gains), would have totaled about 300 times that amount—an incredible $1,500,000 per person (roughly) over the course of the century.

Other evidence also suggests that significant improvements in welfare have derived from the activities of entrepreneurs when they have devoted themselves to productive activities. Take, for instance, figure I.2, which shows the record of productivity growth over a 500-year period for China, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

FIGURE I.2

GDP Per Capita, 1500–2006: China, Italy, and the United Kingdom (1990 international $). (Source: Maddison 2001, 264.)

Between 1500 and the middle of the eighteenth century, the curves representing the levels of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in the three countries are virtually horizontal—a striking record of progress at a snail’s pace.4 But from then on, it is clear that the rate of improvement grows ever faster, until the curves jut sharply upward, and China’s growth rate pulls ahead of both the U.K. and Italy in the second half of the twentieth century, as figure I.3 shows.5

What is striking here is the poor economic performance of China—until the late twentieth century, when its explosive productivity growth occurred.6 That is, the recent explosion in output contrasts dramatically with China’s earlier centuries of astonishing invention, which failed to produce anything like Western growth after the Industrial Revolution. One can argue that the extended medieval period in China was characterized by profusion of inventors, but with entrepreneurs seeking roles in the bureaucracy, rather than in industry. In contrast, in recent decades, entrepreneurship in China has directed itself to the business sector, while accompanied by no innovation comparable to its incredible earlier performance.

Add to this the more dramatic contributions of growing prosperity—for example, the striking increase in longevity that has doubled life expectancy at birth and the elimination of European famine that, until the end of the eighteenth century, occurred every decade, on average, and it becomes difficult not to acknowledge the enormously unmatched contribution to the general welfare of economic growth and, by implication, the critical role of the entrepreneur in this achievement.

FIGURE I.3

Annual Real GDP Growth, 1972–2007: China, Italy, and the United Kingdom. (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2009.)

THE OVERALL IMPLICATION

It appears evident that the really significant payoff to welfare economics lies in intertemporal, rather than stationary, analysis. One of the aims of this book is to suggest how a move in this direction can be carried out; another is to derive some pertinent results that fall within the domain of the welfare economics of growth.

Here there is one important exception: externalities. Static externalities can threaten enormous damage to the general welfare, as in the case of global warming. Still, where else are externalities more enormous than in the case of the huge spillovers from innovation? Consequently, we will pay attention to them in several of the chapters that follow.

However, the conclusions that emerge here will be far from the usual ones. Instead, I will argue that, unlike other externalities that invariably result in welfare-damaging market failure, the externalities of innovation have made an enormously beneficial distributive contribution to the general welfare. While the result may not pass any formal test of approximation to allocative efficiency, it nevertheless may be considered to be very desirable on the whole—most notably in its contribution to the reduction of poverty. In addition, I will show that in much of the affected economic activity, the market mechanism provides strong incentives for business firms to undertake voluntary actions that incidentally support and enhance this externality in a manner that is socially beneficial.

In sum, this book emphasizes the importance of redirecting microeconomic analysis from statics toward dynamics, as well as restoring attention to entrepreneurship, the much neglected, fourth factor of production.

CHAPTER 1

Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory: Reasons for Its Absence and Goals for Its Restoration

Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship.

—Abraham Lincoln, "First Lecture on Discoveries and

Inventions," 6 April 1858

The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.

—Ludwig Von Mises (1940, 270)

If we are interested in explaining what Trygve Haavelmo once described as the really big dissimilarities in economic life, we must be prepared to concern ourselves with entrepreneurship. For the really big differences are usually those that correspond to historical developments over long periods of time, or to the comparative states of various economies—notably, those of the developed and the underdeveloped areas. It has long been recognized that the entrepreneurial function is a vital component in the process of economic growth. Thus, we are led to suspect that if we ignore the entrepreneur, we are prevented from explaining a very substantial proportion of historic growth in developed countries and its distinction from that of other lands. Those who concern themselves with development policy have apparently been driven to similar conclusions. If we seek to explain the degree of success of those economies that have managed to grow significantly in comparison to those that have remained relatively stagnant, we find it difficult to do so without taking into consideration differences in the availability of entrepreneurial talent and in the motivational mechanism that drives them on. Those who design plans to stimulate development devote a substantial proportion of their energies to providing the means for training and encouraging entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs also are present in institutional and applied discussions of a number of economic arenas other than development. For example, their absence is sometimes cited as a significant source of the difficulties of a declining industry, and a balance-of-payments crisis is sometimes discussed in similar terms. Thus, those who study either macro or micro problems reserve a substantial place for innovative entrepreneurship within their analyses.

Whether or not they are assigned star roles in such discussions, entrepreneurs, in practice, play no minor role. In fact, the innovative entrepreneurs are among the most intriguing and elusive characters in the cast of characters that constitute economic analysis. They have long been recognized as occupants of the apex of the hierarchy that determines the behavior of the firm and, thereby, bears a heavy responsibility for the vitality of the free enterprise society. This is no recent phenomenon: in the writings of the classical economists, entrepreneurs appeared at least occasionally, though they remained a shadowy entity with no clearly distinguished form or function. Only Schumpeter, and to some degree, Say, succeeded in infusing entrepreneurs with life, assigning them the task of innovation as a specific area of activity that