THE AUSTRIAN THEORY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ORIGINALITY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT BY ISRAEL KIRZNER

Categories: 2020 Virtual Conference

Lucas Casonato – Economics Professor at Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR) and Faculdade de Educação Superior do Paraná (FESPPR)

Eduardo Angeli – Professor, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)

A synthesis of the Kirznerian theory is presented, as well as an analysis of some of its precursors identified by Kirzner himself. It is argued that Kirznerian theory of entrepreneurship is a product of the simultaneous presence of Misesian and Hayekian contributions contrasted to Neoclassical microeconomics.

Link to paper

YouTube video

One Response to "THE AUSTRIAN THEORY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ORIGINALITY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT BY ISRAEL KIRZNER"

  1. Rafael Galvão de Almeida Posted on 06/20/2020 at 5:23 pm

    The idea of the Kirznean entrepreneur is a very interesting research program, because of how intuitive and, dare I say, beautiful proposition – his main book was expertly written and the metaphor of the entrepreneur as mediator between different consumers. I skimmed through the article and I thought it does contribute to the literature by making a robust argument for the formation of the theory, and how Mises and Hayek were the main influences. This also shows how isolated Austrian economics was before the 1990s, if Kirzner managed to write his theory based only on two authors (as far as I can see).

    That being said, I wonder how exactly Kirzner tried to relate his theory to neoclassical economics. As far as I could see Vaugh’s article, Kirzner’s ” criticisms would be aligned with it, in an attempt to discuss the nature of the common points between the two approaches”. She’s not the only to affirm this, how does it work? One thing is to use neoclassical terms in an attempt to dialogue with them, like Nordhaus did with the political business cycle, and another is building a model. Nordhaus obtained only partial success, his approach of political economy is still considered not very close to the “orthodox core”.

    As far as I could see, Kirzner didn’t use models in the neoclassical tools, like formal models. And the bibliography mostly uses references written by Austrian economists, so I can’t help but to notice a bias in this assessment, that would be solved by presenting non-Austrian sources on his influence. Thus, how successful was Kirzner in dialoguing with neoclassicals? Did they consider him an equal or just someone with “interesting and respectable insights”, but in practical terms a non-economist, like Hirschman and Myrdal? However, I admit this might be issue for another article, on the influence of Kirzner outside Austrian economics.

Leave a Reply