Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion
UMR CNRS 7321
CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT,
INNOVATIONS, BUSINESS CYCLES
AND UNEMPLOYMENT: JOSEPH ALOIS
SCHUMPETER AND EMIL HANS LEDERER
Documents de travail GREDEG
GREDEG Working Papers Series
Harald Hagemann
GREDEG WP No. 2012-13
http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers.html
Les opinions exprimées dans la série des Documents de travail GREDEG sont celles des auteurs et ne reflèlent pas nécessairement celles de
l’institution. Les documents n’ont pas été soumis à un rapport formel et sont donc inclus dans cette série pour obtenir des commentaires et
encourager la discussion. Les droits sur les documents appartiennent aux auteurs.
The views expressed in the GREDEG Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the institution. The
Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage
debate. Copyright belongs to the author(s).
Capitalist Development, Innovations, Business Cycles and Unemployment:
Joseph Alois Schumpeter and Emil Hans Lederer
Harald Hagemann*
GREDEG-CNRS
22 November 2012
* Prof. Dr. Harald Hagemann
University of Hohenheim
Department of Economics (520)
70593 Stuttgart
Germany
[email protected]
1
Capitalist Development, Innovations, Business Cycles and Unemployment:
Joseph Alois Schumpeter and Emil Hans Lederer
Harald Hagemann
“In economic theory, Schumpeter was Lederer’s master.”1
“Emil Lederer … may be described as the leading academic
socialist of Germany in the 1920’s.”2
1. Introduction
Emil Lederer, who was born in the Bohemian town of Pilsen on July 22, 1882 and
Joseph Schumpeter, who was born on February 8, 1883 in Triesch, now Trêst, in
Moravia became life-long friends in their student days at the University of Vienna
where Carl Menger, Eugen von Philippovich, Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen von
Böhm-Bawerk were among their major teachers.3 The life and work of both economists
took place in three states and four political cultures. Both were shaped in culture,
manners as well as intellectually by the Danube monarchy in the first three decades of
their life.
Lederer came to Germany already in 1910 where he made an impressive academic
career at the University of Heidelberg, a liberal enclave in Imperial Germany. 4 When he
was appointed full professor in spring 1923, following Gothein on the chair for
economic and public finance, he became the indirect successor of Max Weber, whose
1
Jacob Marschak, letter to Hans Speier, April 14, 1977. Hans Speier Papers, State University of New
York at Albany.
2
Schumpeter (1954: 884 n. 10).
3
“I first ran up against him [Lederer] in Professor Philippovich’s seminar, if my memory serves me in
1903. Though life separated us it always brought us together again and we never lost contact completely.“
Schumpeter (2000: 331), letter to Alvin Johnson, March 17, 1941.
4
For greater details see Hagemann (2000).
2
younger brother Alfred was the founding director of the Institute for Social and State
Sciences. Both, Lederer and Alfred Weber, represented the unity of the social sciences,
and closely cooperated in the years of the Weimar Republic. In fall 1931 Lederer moved
to the University of Berlin where he succeeded Heinrich Herkner on the chair which
formerly had been held by Gustav Schmoller. After only three semesters the Nazis’ rise
to power in 1933 forced Lederer to emigrate to the United States where he became the
founding Dean of the new ‘University in Exile’, today’s Graduate Faculty of Political
and Social Sciences at the New School for Social Research in New York. Lederer died
of thrombosis at May 29, 1939.
Schumpeter, who had been appointed Associate Professor in Czernovitz in 1909 and
full professor at the University of Graz in 1911, came to Germany in 1925 after
depressing episodes as Austrian minister of Finance in 1919 and president of the
Biedermann Bank. Due to the efforts of his friend and colleague Arthur Spiethoff he got
the chair of public finance which he held until September 1932 when he moved to
Harvard. Whereas the first year in Bonn was overshadowed by personal tragedies, i.e.
the death of his mother, second wife and child, academically the Bonn period was a
successful one. Schumpeter had many committed students and disciples, such as August
Lösch, Erich Schneider, Hans Singer, and Wolfgang Stolper, who later became wellknown economists. Nevertheless the faculty at the University in the capital Berlin,
where the two central chairs in economics, which formerly had been held by Schmoller
succeeded by Herkner, respectively Adolph Wagner and Werner Sombart, became
vacant in 1931-32, was as successful in blocking Schumpeter’s appointment as had been
the Vienna faculty before.5 Schumpeter’s only supporters in the Berlin faculty were
Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz and Herkner who, however, died in 1931 and 1932, and after
his arrival Lederer, who drafted a nine-page minority report in July 1932 to defend both
Schumpeter’s honor and scientific importance against the intrigues of Schumpeter’s
life-long rival and enemy Sombart, yet without success.
Only nine months later, after the Nazis had launched the ‘Restoration of Civil Service
Act’ on April 7, 1933 to dismiss scientists from their academic positions for racial
5
For greater details see Schumpeter’s Letters (2000: 189-219) and Stolper (1994: 311-2).
3
and/or political reasons Schumpeter, on April 19, wrote a letter from Harvard to Wesley
C. Mitchell in New York asking for support of outstanding Hebrew colleagues in
Germany. “The men listed may all of them be described as “more than competent”.
I did on purpose not include any distinctly weak brothers.”6 Lederer, who was a leading
democratic socialist and exposed in the fight against the Nazis – in February 1933
Lederer had engaged himself, together with Albert Einstein and Heinrich Mann, in the
antifaschist congress “Das freie Wort” (free speech) – was among the first to be
dismissed by the Nazis in Berlin. In Schumpeter’s list sent to Mitchell, Lederer was
ranked fifth, after Gustav Stolper, Jacob Marschak, Hans Neisser and Karl Mannheim,
and before Adolf Löwe, Gerhard Colm, Karl Pribram and Eugen Altschul, with the
following assessment:
Professor of Economics at the University of Berlin. Successor of Sombart and farther on
of Schmoller, hence the incumbent of one of the two leading chairs of Germany.
Therefore his case is an especially tragic one. Certainly a more than competent
economist although he never published a well-rounded work, his innumerable books
and papers dealing mainly with employees’ unions, crises, socialism, wage questions,
sociological aspects of present-day civilization. He is 51 years of age and speaks
English very well.7
2. Boehm-Bawerk’s Seminar and the Marxian Challenge: The Formative Years
Of particular influence on Schumpeter as well as on Lederer was Böhm-Bawerk’s
famous seminar in 1905-1906. Schumpeter shared the basic idea of his admired teacher
that business-cycle theory constitutes the final stage of a fully developed system of
economic theory, and, beginning with his first article on the essence of economic crises,
Schumpeter (1910) started to engage himself in the investigation of this subject, which
three decades later culminated in his monumental two-volume work Business Cycles
(1939).8 Schumpeter also participated in the early debate on capital theory between
Böhm-Bawerk and John Bates Clark. One of Schumpeter’s first publications was a
6
Schumpeter (2000: 246).
Ibid: 247. In attributing the succession of Schmoller to Sombart, Schumpeter is confusing the two
central chairs in Berlin.
8
For a detailed analysis of Schumpeter’s early contributions on business-cycle theory and the
development of his views over time see Hagemann (2003).
7
4
review article of Clark’s distribution theory. The distinction between statics and
dynamics, which had been developed by Clark in his The Distribution of Wealth (1899)
also had a stronger influence on Schumpeter and is reflected in his two major works, his
Vienna habilitation thesis on Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen
Nationalökonomie (The Nature and the Main Content of Theoretical Economics)
(Schumpeter 1908) and his The Theory of Economic Development ([1911] 1934) which
form an entity, although the second book can be read independently of the first one.
Whereas the first book focuses on the system of general economic equilibrium and is
inspired by Schumpeter’s great hero Walras, Marx’s views on the long-run development
of the capitalist economy and his emphasis on capital accumulation and technical
progress have formed a life-long challenge for Schumpeter, as is indicated in his vision
of economic development as a distinct process generated by the economic system itself.
It was Böhm-Bawerk’s seminar where both Schumpeter and Lederer first developed a
greater interest in Marxian analysis. Their own teacher, besides Knies, Schäffle and
Sombart, had been one of the few leading economists analysing Marx’s economics in a
scholarly way. In his famous essay on ‘Karl Marx and the Close of his System’, BöhmBawerk (1896) had attacked the labour theory of value as the basis of all errors and
stated that interest would have to be paid independent of ownership of capital goods.
Besides Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) the Austromarxists Otto Bauer (1881-1938),
Rudolf Hilferding (1877-1941) and Otto Neurath (1882-1945) were among Schumpeter
and Lederer’s fellow students. Otto Bauer (1904-5) wrote his first major essay on
Marx’s theory of economic crises. Shortly before Hilferding (1904) had repudiated
Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism of Marx and attacked the subjective theory of value. In 1905
Hilferding had already completed substantial parts of his opus magnum Finance Capital
(1910) in which he argued that the tendency of concentration and centralization of
capital, as emphasized by Marx, had led to the dominance of large banks over industry
and commerce. On the one hand, the development of large-scale industry requires
capital credit, on the other hand the most important branches of industrial production
thus are brought under the control of finance capital which reinforces cartelization and
monopolization tendencies. As Streissler (1994) has correctly observed in his
penetrating analysis, Hilferding’s Finance Capital had a strong influence on the
5
Austrian School, even on Mises and the old Wieser, “but of all of the Austrians, it is
Schumpeter who follows Hilferding most closely. … In fact, Hilferding, soon to be
followed in this respect by Wieser, is one of the first important economic authors to
stress pure managerial (and banking) control of the widely held joint stock company, a
position later championed by Schumpeter9” (30-1).
Lederer who was also strongly influenced by Marx’s analysis of accumulation and
technical progress and by Hilferding’s Finance Capital, published his first scholarly
paper on Marx’s system in the journal founded and edited by Böhm-Bawerk (Lederer
1906). Although Lederer remained a life-long critic of modern capitalist economies, he,
however, never became an orthodox Marxist. His views were shaped by the double
rationality of economic analysis, on the one hand in the Marxian tradition, on the other
hand by the liberal Vienna or Austrian School of economics. Among Lederer’s teachers
probably Eugen von Philippovich (1858-1917), Professor at the Vienna University from
1893 to 1917, who was a leading socialist of the chair but also author of the successful
textbook (1893) which until WW I was the most important medium to transport
Mengerian ideas in Germany, had the greatest influence on Lederer.
Lederer, and Schumpeter “with his truly Catholic appreciation of a wide range of
methodological positions in economics” and, “among orthodox economists … one of
those most strongly influenced by Marxism”10, did not only find inspiration for their
own analyses in Marx but also inspired independent scholarly work of younger
researchers in the Marxian tradition. This can best be illustrated by the case of the coauthors of Monopoly Capital (Baran and Sweezy 1966) which exerted a strong
influence on the New Left in the 1968 student movement, particularly on the group of
young scholars founding the Union for Radical Political Economics. Paul A. Baran
(1910-1964) was the only PhD student of Lederer who could finalize his thesis on
economic planning during his teacher’s short stay at the University of Berlin. As a
Jewish Marxist and a member of the Social Democratic Party he also had to leave Nazi
Germany soon after his teacher. Paul M. Sweezy, whose The Theory of Capitalist
Development (1942) established the author as a leading figure in Western Marxism, had
9
See Schumpeter (1942: chpt. XII.3).
Streissler (1994: 30).
10
6
got enormous inspirations by Schumpeter’s writings and teaching on the long-run
development of capitalist economies at Harvard.
Eduard Heimann (1889-1967), the general secretary of the first and second socialization
commission in Germany after WW I who himself had made his PhD with Alfred Weber
at Heidelberg in 1912, in his assessment of Lederer’s role in the socialization movement
states that “Lederer became a member, and practically the leader, of the socialization
commissions in Germany and Austria during the years 1918-20 … although
Schumpeter’s and Hilferding’s shares should not be neglected” (p. 94).11 Lederer was
director of the scientific section of the Austrian Socialization Commission which was
chaired by Otto Bauer. Chairman of the first German Socialization Commission was
Karl Kautsky. Lederer and Hilferding were original members appointed by the Ministry
of Economics. They were successful in suggesting Schumpeter who became a member
for the short period from January to March 1919, when he had to resign because he
became Austrian minister of finance due to the influence of Bauer and Hilferding. In the
meetings of the German Socialization Commission Schumpeter sided more with the
more radical propagators of integral and immediate socialization, to whom Lederer
belonged at that time, than with the more pragmatic socialists such as Hilferding. He
also signed the majority report favouring socialization, which in the contemporary
understanding included economic democracy and free initiative and individual
responsibility as basic principles rather than nationalization, i.e. transfer of ownership of
the factors of production to the state, and not the minority report of the two liberal
members.
“How could Schumpeter, the high priest of entrepreneurial genius, support socialism
when he obviously was not a Socialist?” (Stolper 1994:213). Apart from Schumpeter’s
often contradictory and ambiguous personal and political behaviour, one should not
forget the key war role of the heavy industries, whose leading representatives were
discredited by the disaster and caused a necessarily democratic response against the
formerly authoritarian rule. Furthermore, “socialization” in that period did not yet imply
11
See section 3 ’Economics of Socialism’ in the obituary of Lederer by Marschak, Kähler and Heimann
(1941: 93-100). For greater details on Schumpeter’s role see Stolper (1994: 202-214) and Swedberg
(1991: 54-58).
7
a Soviet understanding. So even the liberal members agreed to the socialization of the
coal industry and on the state to intervene.
Lederer, who always had been a democratic socialist, in open mistrust to any Bolshevist
experiences,
“relied exclusively on the participation of consumers and government-appointed experts
in the supervisory work of the Board of Directors to prevent excesses of monopolism.
This again is a social and institutional theory of how to determine price, rather than an
economic theory of where to fix it. He cared but little for the elaborate theory of a
socialist economy based on accounting costs: to engage in such highly speculative
inquiries would have been alien to his eminently practical instinct as an economic
theorist” (Heimann 1941: 97).
Lederer had been an initial proponent of socialization. However, he soon became
disappointed by the political and economic development and from 1920 onwards
regarded “socialization” and economic planning primarily as a means to increase
efficiency in the economy. All more radical forms of nationalization which link up with
war forms of organization to establish a fully planned economy are doomed to fail since
they treat socialism as a simple organization problem which excludes pluralism of
interest and settlement of conflicts. In a highly differentiated capitalist economy only a
cautious evolutionary change could be possible. Lederer’s theoretical position in this
period comes out best in his contribution to the 1919 Regensburg meeting of the Verein
für Sozialpolitik which focused on ‘Problems of Socialization’.12 There he states that in
contrast to Marx capitalism is not a sick economic system doomed to collapse, but a
well-constructed economic system whose substance is stable.13
3. The Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik
The Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft and Sozialpolitik had been the most eminent German
journal in the social sciences ever since Edgar Jaffé, Sombart and Max Weber had
become the editors in 1904. Lederer had been involved with the journal since 1911, first
as an editorial assistant and since 1922 as the new managing editor, with the two co12
See Lederer (1919) and also pages 193-201 in the conference volume for the debate on Lederer’s
contribution.
13
See Lederer (1919: 111).
8
editors Schumpeter and Alfred Weber. During the Weimar years the number of articles
focusing on economic issues significantly increased. There had been important articles
before as, for example, Bortkiewicz’ two famous articles on ‘Value and Price in the
Marxian System’ (1906-7), which has remained a central reference point in the
controversial debates on the ‘transformation’ problem until today.
Although the Archiv published many papers by authors with socialist inclinations such
as Heimann, the journal had always been open to authors with different scientific and
political views, in particular to representatives of the liberal Austrian School of
economics. Thus the Archiv in the time of Lederer’s editorship published no less than
ten articles by his Vienna fellow student Ludwig Mises. It was Mises (1920) who in a
famous paper developed the thesis that economic calculation in a socialist
commonwealth is impossible because there is no price formation on free markets, and
thereby launched the socialist calculation debate in the German language area in the
1920s, which found its sequel in Britain in the 1930s when Hayek became involved in a
controversial debate with Lange, Lerner and Dickinson. In his History of Economic
Analysis Schumpeter (1954) classifies Lederer together with Maurice Dobb in the 1920s
and Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner in the 1930s as socialist economists with sympathies
for Marx who, however, have “learned the truth that economic theory is a technique of
reasoning” and that “the scientifically trained socialist is no longer a Marxist except in
matters of economic sociology” (p. 884). In the time of his co-editorship with Lederer
the Archiv published several articles on socialist calculation, such as Karl Polanyi’s
paper (1922) in which the later author of The Great Transformation applies a general
concept of value according to which the value of goods would depend on individual and
social evaluations concerning the utility of goods and painfulness of work also in a
socialist society.
Most important from a modern perspective is the contribution by Jacob Marschak who
in 1919 emigrated from Russia to Germany, where he first studied one semester with
Bortkiewicz in Berlin before he moved to Heidelberg where he became Lederer’s most
outstanding PhD student. Marschak was the first out of a larger group of Menshevists
and mainly well-trained mathematical economists including, among others, Wassily
9
Leontief whose Berlin PhD thesis was also published in the Archiv (Leontief 1928).
Marschak’s first major publication was his article on economic calculation and the
socialist commonwealth in which he critically inspects Mises’s impossibility thesis
(Marschak 1924). In that article, which Arrow (1979: 502) classifies as one of
Marschak’s “papers with the greatest permanent interest”, Marschak objects the
empirical validity of Mises’s argument, because the requirements of price formation on
free markets are less and less fulfilled in capitalist economies due to the high number of
cartels and trusts. The latter’s increasing number shows that the advantages of
monopolies lie exactly in those two areas which are most affected by Mises’s
scepticism: economic calculation for goods of higher order and dynamic pricing.14
Marschak’s argument corresponds with the increase in efficiency emphasized by his
mentor Lederer as well as with the view of Schumpeter to whom Marschak explicitly
refers. Schumpeter, who classified Marschak at the beginning of 1933 as “probably the
most gifted scientific economist of the exact quantitative type now in Germany”
(Schumpeter 2000: 247), had already pointed out in his Vienna habilitation thesis “that
the size, power and secure position, furthermore the far-sighted, more capable
management of many monopolies, in particular those of modern trusts, involves that the
future and conscious manoeuvring are much more visible in their pricing policy than
with a great mass of competitors who on a large scale only do what they must do”
(Schumpeter 1908: 268). It should be added that Marschak’s early critic with its
emphasis on dynamic factors later inspired Hayek to elaborate the problems of socialist
calculation with particular emphasis on the dispersion of knowledge and on decision
making under uncertainty (in particular with regard to technical progress) and imperfect
information in the British debate of the 1930s.
Schumpeter did not directly participate in the socialist calculation debate but he
supervised the PhD thesis of Cläre Tisch on ‘Economic calculation and distribution in
the centrally organized socialist commonwealth’ (Tisch 1932). Her critique of barter
socialism is as well founded as her own solution of the socialist calculation problem
which is based on a Walrasian general equilibrium system in the simplified version of
Cassel. Tisch thus can be regarded as a forerunner of the so-called ‘neoclassical
14
See Marschak (1924: 514).
10
socialists’, like Dickinson, Lange and Lerner, who dominated the British debate in the
1930s. It therefore comes to no surprise that Hayek in his later confrontation with these
authors also refers to Tisch’s work.15
The article published in the Archiv, during the period of Schumpeter’s co-editorship,
which had the greatest impact on his own work was Nikolai Kondratieff’s famous essay
‘Long Waves in Economic Life’ (1926) in which the author concluded that the
existence of price and output long waves is very probable but provided no theoretical
explanation. Schumpeter, with his habit to name phenomena after their discoverer, did
not only coin the term “Kondratieff cycle” but also, in his Business Cycles (1939)
presented a three-cycle schema, in which (the first three) Kondratieff long waves
constitute the framework where they are combined with the classical Juglar and the
shorter Kitchin cycles. Schumpeter also initiated the first abridged English translation of
Kondratieff’s article, which was done by his PhD student Wolfgang Stolper.
4. Business Cycles and Capitalist Development
Lederer and Schumpeter both share the view that capitalist economies normally are in
dynamic disequilibrium. Business cycles are seen as an integral part of capitalist
development.16 Emphasis in economic theory should therefore be put on the analysis of
the short-run and particularly the long-run dynamics of the economy. Lederer saw rather
early the importance of increasing returns to scale in production and their negative
implications concerning the simple application of the principle of marginal productivity.
In general, the interaction between dynamic changes and imperfect competition plays a
fruitful role in Lederer’s analysis. This holds for his business-cycle theory, where
increasing returns build a starting point, as well as for his analysis of the employment
consequences of technical progress or of changes in income distribution.
In retrospect, Schumpeter (1954: 1133, n. 25) mentions Lederer’s theory of business
cycles and crises, as developed in Lederer (1925), as “an example of an analysis that
15
See Hayek (1940: 128).
See, for example, Lederer (1925: 368) who explicitly refers to Schumpeter. For a modern assessment of
the development of Lederer’s analysis of business cycles, crises, and growth see Allgoewer (2003).
16
11
stresses certain types of disproportionalities”. Although he recognizes that
disproportionality theories overlap with his own theory, Schumpeter points out that
“disproportionality remains an empty phrase so long as it is not linked with definite
factors that are to account for it and because, so soon as it is so linked, those factors and
not disproportionality per se will individuate an author’s theory”.
In Schumpeter’s view not only chapter 6 but in fact any single page of his Theory of
Economic Development is dedicated to the problem of the business cycle, and analyzing
business cycles “means neither more nor less than analyzing the economic process of
the capitalist era” (Schumpeter 1939: V). His theory of economic development consists
of three essential elements: innovations which give rise to wave-like movements,
pioneering entrepreneurs as the agents of creative destruction, and bank credit as the
prerequisite for the foundation of new enterprises and the financing of innovative
investments. Economic development requires new combinations of productive means
brought about by entrepreneurs as the carriers and credit as the means of innovation.
Innovations which are of an endogenous nature and occur in bursts are at the root of
cyclical fluctuations and give rise to great ups and downs in investment demand.
Whereas in Marx there are systemic forces such as the pressure of competition which
give the capitalist economy its innovative drive, Schumpeter makes the pioneering
entrepreneurs with his will and energy the Demiurg of economic change and
development. Schumpeter attributes central elements of the elite theories of his time to
these pioneering entrepreneurs, a group he clearly distinguishes from inventing
engineers and capitalists alike, and in which a very special blend of the methodological
individualism of the Austrian School, in particular the influence of his teacher Wieser,
may be identified.
The emergence of temporary monopoly profits are the main driving force for
entrepreneurs to innovate. The financing of innovations by means of credit is the
function of the banking system. Although in Schumpeter’s view the banker is not the
trader but the producer of purchasing power, and credit creation is a necessary condition
for development, the banking system is not the decisive producer of business cycles but
plays a rather passive role adapting itself to the demand by innovating entrepreneurs
12
which fluctuates pro-cyclically. Schumpeter’s assumption that available resources are
fully utilized in the circular flow implies that the putting of new combinations into
practice requires some reallocation of these resources. The effect of credit creation, that
is, of new purchasing power not rooted in previous savings, is an increase of aggregate
demand in monetary terms which implies temporary inflation and a reallocation of
resources towards the innovating entrepreneurs. Schumpeter thus makes forced savings
an integral part of his theory. Although interest on capital is a monetary phenomenon, it
is ultimately based on a real factor, namely the productivity-enhancing effects of
innovations. Interest thus becomes the product of economic development. Schumpeter
makes it very clear that additional credit has to be spent for innovative investment
activities, not for increased consumption, so that the quantity of new purchasing power
is supported and limited by future goods.17
Schumpeter’s views found the strongest resonance in the contemporary German
literature in L. Albert Hahn’s Economic Theory of Bank Credit (1920). Hahn wanted to
overcome the classical doctrine that every credit has to be financed by means of savings
deposited with the banks, which he regarded as inappropriate for a modern economy. A
key sentence reads: Capital formation is not the result of saving but of credit (Hahn
1920: 120). It therefore is no surprise that Howard Ellis (1934) in his classical study on
German Monetary Theory: 1905-1933 distinguishes between “The Schumpeter-Hahn
Type of Cycle Theory” and “The Mises-Hayek Analysis of Cycles”. Whereas the first
two authors emphasized the importance of credit for economic development, the latter
two pointed out the inflationary danger of any credit not rooted in previous savings thus
leading to a monetary overinvestment theory.
Lederer, too, had a central vision of economic development according to which cyclical
fluctuations are an endogenous phenomenon inseparably linked with the long-run
growth process of a capitalist economy. Interestingly, Schumpeter wrote an essay on
‘Development’ as his contribution to the Festschrift for Emil Lederer on his 50th
birthday in 1932 which, however, was only published more than seven decades later
(Schumpeter 2005). Looking at Lederer’s writings, it becomes very clear that his
17
See chapter 3 on ’Credit and Capital’ in Schumpeter [1926](1934).
13
analyses share many aspects with the Schumpeter-Hahn approach. For example, the
forced-saving argument comes out pretty clear in Lederer (1931: chpt. VI).
5. Technological Unemployment
The analysis of technological unemployment had highest priority for Lederer, who
published numerous articles and two monographs on this issue, of which Technical
Progress and Unemployment. An Enquiry into the Obstacles to Economic Expansion
(Lederer 1938) is a widely extended and modified version of his earlier German book
on Technical Progress and Unemployment (Lederer 1931). Schumpeter, on the other
hand, regarded “[t]he controversy [on the machinery problem] that went on throughout
the nineteenth century and beyond, mainly in the form of argument pro and con
‘compensation’” as “dead and buried … it vanished from the scene as a better technique
filtered into general use which left nothing to disagree about” (1954: 684, my italics).
With a wave of rationalization and high unemployment the spectre of technological
unemployment entered centre stage again in the late 1920s. This led to a revival in the
old controversy between labour displacement pessimism and compensation optimism.
Lederer, who regarded mass unemployment as a decisive threat to the democratic
institutions of the Weimar Republic, now focused in his research on the employment
consequences of technological change. In the preface to his first monograph Lederer
(1931: III) states that the question of technical progress and its effects belongs to the
“darkest problems of a theory of capitalist dynamics” and substantiates this with the
dominance of the equilibrium approach in economics which had called forth the
conception that technical progress cannot cause permanent disturbances. However, this
conception had been shaken by the severity of unemployment.18
According to Schumpeter (1954: 685) “Marxist unemployment is essentially
technological unemployment. This technological unemployment had to create a
permanent ‘industrial reserve army’.” In his analysis of technological unemployment
Lederer combines central elements of Marx’s theory of accumulation with
18
For a more detailed analysis of Lederer’s studies on technological unemployment see Hagemann
(2009).
14
Schumpeterian ideas of innovation and credit in long-run development. Lederer
elaborates a two-sectoral model comprising a dynamic sector with only one industry
with large firms which produce capital goods, and a static sector with a large number of
small industries and firms growing in line with the rate of labour supply. Due to the
introduction of more mechanized new production processes, particularly in boom
periods, the firms in the dynamic sector can generate higher profit rates which lead to a
reallocation of capital from the static to the dynamic sector thus undermining the ability
of the economy to maintain full employment. The basic factor to cause disequilibrium
identified by Lederer is the profit-motivated drive of the large firms to realize
economies of scale, which causes a growing tendency to concentration and cartelization.
This tendency has also implications for income distribution which is changed in favour
of the capitalists. Monopolistic market structures prevent prices from falling in
proportion or faster than money wages. The decreasing purchasing power of wage
earners causes a lack of demand for consumer goods which indirectly reduces the
demand for capital goods. Instead of a movement along a balanced growth path the
economy ends up in relative stagnation.
Despite the impression given by Kaldor (1932), Lederer did not make a case against
technical progress, since he never denied that technical progress makes possible a great
expansion of production and increasing employment with growing income of the
masses.19 However, in contrast to many economists, starting with Ricardo, who put
emphasis on a process of real capital formation as a necessary condition for a successful
compensation of displaced workers, Lederer points out “that capital formation on its
own does not guarantee growth in the number of jobs. If the speed in the increase of the
organic composition becomes so fast that despite the capital accumulation the demand
for workers falls permanently behind the supply of workers, then unemployment
becomes structural”20.
A certain impact of Lederer’s emigration to the USA, as first emphasized by Esslinger
(1993), can also be identified in his studies on the employment consequences of
technical progress. Thus Lederer (1938) puts more weight on product innovations and
19
20
See, for example, Lederer (1931: VI).
Lederer (1931: 72n, my italics).
15
their positive employment effects. He now also sides with Wicksell, Kaldor and Hicks
(1932) against Ricardo’s view that a viable invention can reduce the total of real output
after all competitive prices have adjusted to clear all markets. 21 This is a remarkable
contrast to the numerical examples constructed in chapter 4 of his earlier book (Lederer
1931), which are characterized by a loss in the total value of the national output with a
net increase on profits and interest being smaller than the decline in wage income.
Interestingly, in his reference to a superior technique developed by modern economic
theory, Schumpeter (1954: 684) explicitly refers to chapter VI ‘Distribution and
Economic Progress’ of Hicks’s Theory of Wages (1932). However, Hicks himself later
regarded his own approach as inadequate for the investigation of the employment
consequences of new technologies. By the late 1960s, almost two decades after
Schumpeter’s death, Hicks became fascinated by the Ricardo machinery effect and set
out to defend what he considered the core of Ricardo’s analysis, namely that there exist
important cases in which the introduction of a new type of machinery can lead to a
temporary reduction of real output and employment.22
Schumpeter considered technological unemployment as a special case arising from
disturbance by innovations within the economic system, “which has always been
intended to cover displacement of workmen by machinery. We make it cover a much
wider range and include not only the effects on employment of every kind of change in
industry and commerce – organizational change, for instance – but also the effects
which changes have on employment in firms or industries that are completed with by
the firms of industries that introduce new production functions” (Schumpeter 1939, II:
514). Schumpeter goes on to stress that “cyclical unemployment is technological
unemployment”, a view to which, with high probability, neither Marx nor Keynes
would have subscribed. In Schumpeter’s approach it follows from the dominating role
of innovations causing wavelike movements in the development process of capitalist
economies. “Technological unemployment … is of the essence of our process and,
linking up as it does with innovations, is cyclical by nature.” (Ibid: 515). In
Schumpeter’s view the concept of frictional unemployment becomes the overarching
21
22
See Lederer (1938: 198-214).
See Hagemann (2008).
16
category which, besides other types of unemployment comprises also technological
unemployment.23
Whereas Lederer recognizes a too high speed of technical progress as the main cause of
technological unemployment, Schumpeter, on the other hand, identifies technological
unemployment as a temporary phenomenon and an unavoidable by-product of capitalist
development.
6. Schumpeter and Lederer: Two Social Economists
As Yuichi Shionoya and Richard Swedberg have repeatedly and convincingly reminded
us, Schumpeter’s economics consists of four essential elements: economic theory,
economic history, statistics and economic sociology.24 Thus the recognition that
Schumpeter’s concern for development and his belief in the unity of social life and the
inseparable relationship among its components led him to create a social economics, i.e.
a more broadly-based science of economics, constitutes a key to understand his work.
Schumpeter “grasped at the olive branch proffered by Max Weber” after the dispute on
method between Menger and Schmoller, namely social economics as “something in
between historical and purely theoretical economics. Schumpeter espoused this concept
and made it his own, and in this respect became more of a traditional “German” than an
“Austrian” economist. On the other hand, he remained completely “Austrian” in his
thorough theoretical grounding” (Streissler 1994: 38). This is a very precise assessment
by Streissler, who is also right in his pointing out that Schumpeter is thoroughly
Weberian in his view to keep out value judgements from theoretical economics.
Lederer was less strict concerning the position that theoretical economics should not
take a political stance25, although he knew from his student days in Vienna that
23
See Schumpeter (1954: 944 n. 57) and Boianovsky and Trautwein (2008) for a more detailed analysis
of Schumpeter’s theory of unemployment.
24
See, for example, Shionoya (1997) and Swedberg (1991).
25
With all his disappointment and frustration about the failing offer to come from the University of
Berlin, Schumpeter was surely unjust to Lederer and exaggerated when he wrote in a letter to Keynes on
December 3, 1932, discussing the issue who could follow Schumpeter as the German correspondent of
The Economic Journal, after Schumpeter’s move to Harvard: „he [Lederer] is a party man of the type
which obeys orders without asking a question. And in all matters which can be brought into any relation
at all with politics he is absolutely unable to see except through party glasses“ (Schumpeter 2000: 230).
17
economics means exact and strong thinking. He also did not share Schumpeter’s high
praise for Walras but was more attracted by some of the key issues of classical political
economists, above all the machinery problem. However, there are also strong elements
of similarity with the views and positions of his friend Schumpeter. Lederer remained
convinced throughout his life that the important dynamic changes in economy and
society also include factors which fall into the areas of sociology, political science,
history, psychology or engineering. Their inclusion is necessary to raise economics
from a status of hypothetical deductions and to make it a genuine social science.
Consequently, Lederer called himself a Sozialökonom, and it is in this area, social
economics, that he made his strongest contributions. This begins with his early and
pioneering, theoretical and empirical analyses of the working conditions and political
attitudes of the modern salaried employees, the “new middle classes”. It also holds for
his socioeconomic study of the Japanese industrialization process, jointly written with
his first wife Emy Seidler after holding a Visiting Professorship at the University of
Tokyo from 1923-25, which in a period of increasing political tensions was republished
in a completely revised version as Japan in Transition in the United States (1938).
Lederer’s love for Japan was shared by Schumpeter, who made a first extended visit to
Japan in January-February 1931 which had a tremendous impact on the emerging
Japanese School of modern economics through a younger generation of economists.
References
Allgoewer, E. (2003), ‘Emil Lederer: Business Cycles, Crises and Growth’, Journal of
the History of Economic Thought, 25(3): 327-348.
Arrow, K.J. (1979), ‘Jacob Marschak’, in D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, Vol 18: Biographical Supplement, New York and London:
Macmillan
Baran, P.A., Sweezy, P.M. (1966), Monopoly Capital, New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Bauer, O. (1904-5), ‘Marx’ Theorie der Wirtschaftskrisen’, Die Neue Zeit, 23.
18
Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1896), Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems, in: O.v. Boenigk
(ed.), Staatswissenschaftliche Arbeiten. Festgaben für Karl Knies, Berlin: Haering;
Engl. transl. as Karl Marx and the Close of his System, London 1898: Fisher
Unwin.
Boianovsky, M., Trautwein, H.-M. (2008), ‘Frictions in Schumpeter’s theory of
unemployment’, in Y. Shionoya, T. Nishizawa (eds.), Marshall and Schumpeter
on Evolution. Economic Sociology of Capitalist Development, Cheltenham, UK,
Northampton, Mass.
Bortkiewicz, L.v. (1906-7), ‘Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung im Marxschen System’,
Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 23: 1-50, and 25: 10-51.
Ellis, H.S. (1934), German Monetary Theory: 1905-1933, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Eßlinger, H.U. (1993), ’The Impact of Emigration on Lederer’s Work on Economics’,
History of Economic Ideas, 1: 111-140.
Hagemann, H. (2000), ‘Emil Lederer (1882-1939): Economical and Sociological
Analyst and Critic of Capitalist Development’, in P. Koslowski (ed.), The Theory
of Capitalism in the German Economic Tradition, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York:
Springer.
Hagemann, H. (2003), ‘Schumpeter’s Early Contributions on Crises Theory and
Business-Cycle Theory’, History of Economic Ideas, 11: 47-67.
Hagemann, H. (2008), ‘Capital, Growth and Production Disequilibria: On the
Employment Consequences of New Technologies’, in: R. Scazzieri, A.K. Sen, S.
Zamagni (eds.), Markets, Money and Capital. Hicksian Economics for the 21st
Century, Cambridge: University Press, 346-366.
Hagemann, H. (2009), ‘Emil Lederer’s Untersuchungen Technischer Fortschritt und
Arbeitslosigkeit: eine Theorie struktureller Arbeitslosigkeit’, in G. Chaloupek et
al., Rationalisierung und Massenarbeitslosigkeit. Otto Bauers Theorie der
Rationalisierung im Kontext der Zeit, Graz: Leykam.
Hahn, A. (1920), Volkswirtschaftliche Theorie des Bankkredits, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Hayek, F.A. (1940), ‘Socialist Calculation: the Competitive Solution’, Economica, 7:
125-149.
Hicks, J. (1932), The Theory of Wages, London: Macmillan.
19
Hilferding, R. (1904), Böhm-Bawerks Marx Kritik, in M. Adler, R. Hilferding (eds.),
Marx Studien, Vol. 1, Vienna; Engl. transl. Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx, ed.
by P.M. Sweezy, New York 1949: Kelley.
Hilferding, R. (1910), Das Finanzkapital. Eine Studie über die jüngste Entwicklung des
Kapitalismus, Vienna; Engl. transl. Finance Capital. A Study of the Latest Phase
of Capitalist Development, London 1981: Routledge&Kegan Paul.
Kaldor, N. (1932), ‘A Case Against Technical Progress?’, Economica, 12: 180-196.
Kondratieff, N.D. (1926), ‘Die langen Wellen der Konjunktur’, Archiv für
Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 56: 573-609; shortened Engl. transl. ’The
long waves in economic life’, Review of Economic Statistics, 17, 1935: 105-115.
Lederer, E. (1906), ’Beiträge zur Kritik des Marxschen Systems’, Zeitschrift für
Volkswirtschaft, Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung, 15: 307-324.
Lederer, E. (1919), ’Probleme der Sozialisierung’, in Schriften des Vereins für
Sozialpolitik, Vol. 159, Munich: Duncker&Humblot.
Lederer, E. (1925), ’Konjunktur und Krisen’, in Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, Sect.
IV, Part I, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Lederer, E. (1931), Technischer Fortschritt und Arbeitslosigkeit, Tübingen: J.C.B.
Mohr.
Lederer, E. (1938), Technical Progress and Unemployment. An Enquiry into the
Obstacles to Economic Expansion, Geneva: International Labour Office.
Lederer, E. and Lederer-Seidler, E. (1929), Japan-Europa. Wandlungen im Fernen
Osten, Frankfurt am Main: Societät; new edition Japan in Transition, New Haven,
Conn. 1938: Yale University Press.
Leontief, W. (1928), ‘Die Wirtschaft als Kreislauf’, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und
Sozialpolitik, 60: 577-623.
Marschak, J. (1924), Wirtschaftsrechnung und Gemeinwirtschaft. Zur Mises’schen
These von der Unmöglichkeit sozialistischer Wirtschaftsrechnung, Archiv für
Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 51: 501-520.
Marschak, J., Kähler, A., Heimann, E. (1941), ’Emil Lederer, 1882-1939. II. The
Economist’, Social Research, 8: 79-105.
Mises, L. (1920), ’Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im Sozialistischen Gemeinwesen’, Archiv
für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 47: 86-121.
20
Perlman, M. [1994](1996), ’On Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis, 40 Years
After’, in M. Perlman, The Character of Economic Thought, Economic Characters
and Economic Institutions. Selected Essays, Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Philippovich, E.v. (1893), Grundriss der politischen Ökonomie, I: Allgemeine
Volkswirtschaftslehre, Freiburg.
Polanyi, K. (1922), ‘Sozialistische Rechnungslegung’, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik, 49: 377-420.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1908), Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen
Nationalökonomie, Leipzig: Duncker&Humblot.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1910), ’Über das Wesen der Wirtschaftskrisen’, Zeitschrift für
Volkswirtschaft , Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung, 19: 271-325.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1911), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Munich and
Leipzig: Duncker&Humblot, 2nd revised ed. 1926; Engl. transl. as The Theory of
Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the
Business Cycle, Cambridge, Mass. 1934: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1939), Business Cycles. A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process, 2 vols, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York and
London: Harper&Brothers.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1954), History of Economic Analysis, London: Allen&Unwin.
Schumpeter, J.A. (2000), Briefe/Letters, sel. and ed. by U. Hedtke and R. Swedberg,
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Schumpeter, J.A. [1932](2005), ‘Development’, with an introduction by M.C. Becker,
H.U. Esslinger, U. Hedtke and T. Knudsen, Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1):
108-120.
Shionoya, Y. (1997), Schumpeter and the Idea of Social Science. A Metatheoretical
Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stolper, W.F. (1994), Joseph Alois Schumpeter. The Public Life of a Private Man,
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
21
Streissler, E.W. (1994), ‘The Influence of German and Austrian Economics on Joseph
A. Schumpeter’, in Y. Shionoya and M. Perlman (eds.), Schumpeter in the History
of Ideas, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Swedberg, R. (1991), Schumpeter. A Biography, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Tisch, C. (1932), Wirtschaftsrechnung und Verteilung im zentralistisch organisierten
sozialistischen Gemeinwesen, Wuppertal-Elberfeld: Scheschinski.
DOCUMENTS DE TRAVAIL GREDEG PARUS EN 2012
GREDEG Working Papers Released in 2012
2012-01
Frédéric Marty
Les clauses environnementales dans les marchés publics : perspectives économiques
2012-02
Christophe Charlier
Distrust and Barriers to International Trade in Food Products: An Analysis of the US-
Poultry Dispute
2012-03
Gérard Mondello
The Equivalence of Strict Liability and Negligence Rule: A Trompe-l’Œil Perspective
2012-04
Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste
Somebody May Scold You! A Dictator Experiment
2012-05
Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois
A Probabilistic Ghost in the Experimental Machine
2012-06
Gérard Mondello
Ambiguity, Agency Relationships, and Adverse Selection
2012-07
Flora Bellone, Kozo Kiyota, Toshiyuki Matsuura, Patrick Musso & Lionel Nesta
International Productivity Gaps and the Export Status of Firms: Evidence from France
and Japan
2012-08
Tiziana Assenza & Domenico Delli Gatti
E. Pluribus Unum: Macroeconomic Modelling for Multi-Agent Economies
2012-09
Catherine Guillemineau
Financial Reforms, International Financial Flows, and Growth in Advanced Economies
2012-10
Dino Borie
Social Decision Theory and Non-Strategic Behaviour
2012-11
Edward Lorenz
Social Capital and Enterprise Innovative Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis of Developing Nations
2012-12
Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste
The ‘Economics of Attention’: A New Avenue of Research in Cognitive Economics
2012-13
Harald Hagemann
Capitalist Development, Innovations, Business Cycles and Unemployment: Joseph Alois Schumpeter and Emil Hans Lederer