William J. Baumol: An Entrepreneurial Economist on the Economics of Entrepreneurship

William J. Baumol is the 2003 winner of the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Throughout his career Baumol has urged the profession to pay attention to the instrumental role of entrepreneurship in economic renewal and growth. At the same time he has insisted that economists continue to use their usual tool box when the purview of analysis is extended to entrepreneurship. Hence, Baumol can be characterized as a revolutionary from within. In this article we present and discuss Baumol’s research contribution in the areas of entrepreneurship and small business economics, notably from a growth perspective. In addition to placing his work in these areas into the wider context of his full contribution, we emphasize Baumol’s findings that growth cannot be explained by the accumulation of various factors of production per se; human creativity and productive entrepreneurship are needed to combine the inputs in profitable ways. As a result, an institutional environment that encourages productive entrepreneurship and human experimentation becomes the ultimate determinant of economic growth.Economic development; Entrepreneurship; Small business economics

Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs vs. Corporate Incremental Improvements

This paper explores the following hypotheses on the appropriate education for innovating entrepreneurship: a) breakthrough inventions are contributed disproportionately by independent inventors and entrepreneurs, while large firms focus on cumulative, incremental (and often invaluable) improvements; b) education for mastery of scientific knowledge and methods is enormously valuable for innovation and growth, but can impede heterodox thinking and imagination; c) large-firm R&D requires personnel who are highly educated in extant information and analytic methods, while successful independent entrepreneurs and inventors often lack such preparation; d) while procedures for teaching current knowledge and methods in science and engineering are effective, we know little about training for the critical task of breakthrough innovation.

"Side Effects of Progress, How Technological Change Increases the Duration of Unemployment"

Why does a dynamic growing economy have a persistent long-term unemployment problem? Research Associates William J. Baumol and Edward N. Wolff have isolated one cause. Although technological change, the engine of growth and economic progress, may not affect or may even increase the total number of jobs available, the fact that it creates a demand for new skills and makes other skills obsolete can cause an increase in the overall rate of unemployment and the length of time during which an unemployed worker is between jobs. It goes without saying that society will not choose to slow technical innovation, but the task for policy is to find ways to offset the problems caused by this rising level and duration of unemployment.

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Growth: The David-Goliath Symbiosis

Investment in innovation in industrialized economies increasingly is taken over by large firms that operate their own R&D divisions and transform technological change into a routine bureaucratized process. Powerful competitive forces require firms to do this for survival. But such routinized innovation has not replaced the individual independent innovator, the traditional source of technical change. The latter have tended to provide the more revolutionary breakthroughs, to which corporate research has added reliability, enhanced power and ease of utilization. Thus, both make a vital contribution to growth. While the results of big business research are often less spectacular, they have typically added up to very substantial improvements

Deregulatory Takings and Breach of the Regulatory Contract

The October 1996 issue of the New York University Law Review includes a work dealing with deregulatory takings and breach of deregulatory contracts. Next October, the N.Y.U. Law Review will contain a rebuttal, a response critiquing work done by J. Gregory Sidak and Daniel Spulber. This critique is coauthored by William J. Baumol and Thomas W. Merrill. We are very fortunate here today to have that same Thomas W. Merrill with us. Our participants this afternoon on the panel will go in that order. Lewis Powell will discuss the propositions that the Telecommunications Act, and perhaps other current proposals for restructuring the electric industry, will constitute either violations of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, a deregulatory contract or an implied contract, and perhaps other constitutional provisions such as the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If he doesn\u27t say that they do, he will probably raise serious questions as to whether or not they might do that

Testing William Baumol’s “Toward a Newer Economics: The Future Lies Ahead!â€

20 years ago, William Baumol provided an interesting wish list that outlined his hopes for the future of economics over the next hundred years. Impatiently, this paper puts his wish list to the test by comparing the characteristics of publications that appeared in the American Economic Review before Baumol’s contribution in 1991 (1984 to 1988) and those published 20 years later (2004 to 2008), and by looking at the Job Openings for Economists between 1991 and 2009. Focusing on issues such as the role of mathematics, the short-run orientation of macroeconomics, the emphasis of economic history versus the history of economic ideas, as well as a more concrete menu of wishes for applied economics, we observe that this was not just a wish list, but is in many ways a list that offers an accurate picture of what has changed over time and what has happened in recent years.American Economic Review, William Baumol, Mathematics, Macroeconomics, Applied Economics, Job Openings

Alternative Methods for Measuring Productivity Growth

The present study is a contribution to the theory of the measurement of productivity growth. First, it examines the welfare-theoretic basis for measuring productivity growth and shows that the ideal welfare-theoretic measure is a chain index of productivity growth rates of different sectors which uses current output weights. Second, it lays out a technique for decomposing productivity growth which separates aggregate productivity growth into three factors -- the pure productivity effect, the effect of changing shares, and the effect of different productivity levels. Finally, it shows how to apply the theoretically correct measure of productivity growth and indicates which of the three different components should be included in a welfare-oriented measure of productivity growth. The study concludes that none of the measures generally used to measure productivity growth is consistent with the theoretically correct measure.