Schumpeter and Venture Finance: Radical Theorist, Broke Investor and Enigmatic Teacher

Schumpeter's relation to venture finance constitutes a fascinating yet so far unacknowledged chapter of his biography and financial history. Presenting new historical evidence and pointing out connections that have so far escaped attention, we first discuss Schumpeter's venture theory of money and banking, then his personal history as a broke investor in Vienna, and finally his influence on the emerging venture industry during his later years at Harvard. We show how the theoretical vision inspired his failed effort as a venture investor in the 1920s, and provided a powerful intellectual frame for the later development of venture finance in the 1940s

Reincorporating Friedrich von Wieser and the Concept of Power into the Austrian Research Program

This paper constitutes the start of a project dedicated to Austrian economist and economic sociologist Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926). Its central claim is that especially in recent decades, Wieser has become a disproportionately underresearched scholar, and the paper provides a set of arguments why this is unjustified. Wieser's life and work are portrayed along five dimensions: the innovative social scientist (section 2); the erector of the Austrian School in its formative decades (section 3); the synthesizer of socio-economic ideas (section 4); the teacher to whom scientific credit has been granted undeservedly seldom (section 5); finally, the connector to other contemporaneous paradigms of economics and economic sociology, especially the ones of Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto (section 6). The paper sets up a meta-presentation of a set of questions that appear crucial at this stage of the project. In subsequent sub-projects, the five above dimensions will be expanded into separate but interdependent expositions. As an example for the initiation of such a sub-project, Wieser's concept of power - a key topos also for the other members of the Viennese "triumvirate" - is revisited (section 7). Since later generations of the Austrian School have been reluctant to use this concept in their systems, this and later inquiries will explore how central Austrian concepts like "spontaneous order" or "human action" may need a reformulation if power relations are explicitly built into the analysis. While the project is primarily conducted as a history of economics endeavor, revisiting Wieser's legacy in general and the significance of power in particular also aims at generating impulses for the further development of the research program of Austrian economics, as well as at a better understanding of the increasing politico-economic fragility and instability of today's Western democracies, phenomena related to power and leadership

Is Equilibrium Enough and Was Stigler Wrong? Value Theory in the Böhm-Bawerk/Fisher Controversies

The interest-rate controversies between Böhm-Bawerk and Fisher have attracted little attention and, in the opinion of most commentators, justifiably so. Böhm-Bawerk and Fisher argue over what appear to be two minor issues – Böhm-Bawerk's claims that his third cause of interest (productivity of roundabout production processes) is independent of his other two subjective causes of interest and that simultaneous equations models involve circular reasoning and fail to provide a "causal" explanation of interest. The issues not only appear unimportant, their resolution seems clear – Böhm-Bawerk was wrong in both cases. Subsequent commentators, including Stigler, have taken Fisher's side, arguing that Böhm-Bawerk "fails to understand some of the most essential elements of modern economic theory, the concepts of mutual determination and equilibrium (developed by the use of the theory of simultaneous equations)." I propose a radically different assessment, arguing that post-1870 debates over the extension of the subjective marginal utility theory of value to production and distribution, coupled with classical elements in Böhm-Bawerk's theories and his "outsider" status as an Austrian, fuelled the Böhm-Bawerk-Fisher controversies. Böhm-Bawerk was reacting to Fisher's gross exaggeration of subjective (versus objective) elements in his interest theory and wanted a causal explanation of prices in addition to well-understood simultaneous determination. Value theory debates explain both Fisher's exaggerations and Böhm- Bawerk's refusal to be satisfied with equilibrium alone