Skip Navigation

Industrial and Corporate Change 2006 15(1):125-141; doi:10.1093/icc/dtj006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winter, S. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B52 - Institutional; Evolutionary
Right arrow D21 - Firm Behavior
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved.

Toward a neo-Schumpeterian theory of the firm

Sidney G. Winter

Correspondence: Sidney G. Winter, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Suite 2000, SH-DH, 3620 Locust Walk, PA 19104, USA. e-mail: winter{at}wharton.upenn.edu

This article offers a sketch of what an economic theory of the firm would look like if it were founded on the thought of Joseph Schumpeter, particularly on Chapters 1 and 2 of his Theory of Economic Development. Schumpeterian analysis requires an intuitively appealing and realistic conceptualization of the distinction between routine and innovative behavior, and in particular, a conceptualization relevant to complex organizations and complex tasks. It is argued that the production theory found in mainstream economics does not meet this requirement, particularly because its characterization of productive knowledge involves an overly sharp distinction between "technically possible" and "technically impossible"—a distinction which has no counterpart in the realities of organizational knowledge. The main elements of a Schumpeterian view are described and contrasted with those in the mainstream view.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
G. Dosi and M. Grazzi
On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts and production inputs
Camb. J. Econ., July 1, 2009; (2009) bep041v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
A. Bergek, F. Tell, C. Berggren, and J. Watson
Technological capabilities and late shakeouts: industrial dynamics in the advanced gas turbine industry, 1987-2002
Ind. Corp. Change, April 1, 2008; 17(2): 335 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
F. Castellacci
Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth
Ind. Corp. Change, December 1, 2007; 16(6): 1105 - 1145.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ECON GEOGRHome page
P. Maskell and A. Malmberg
Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution
J. Econ. Geogr., September 1, 2007; 7(5): 603 - 618.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
G. Dosi, F. Malerba, G. B. Ramello, and F. Silva
Information, appropriability, and the generation of innovative knowledge four decades after Arrow and Nelson: an introduction
Ind. Corp. Change, December 1, 2006; 15(6): 891 - 901.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ind Corp ChangeHome page
J.-A. Lamberg and H. Tikkanen
Changing sources of competitive advantage: cognition and path dependence in the Finnish retail industry 1945-1995
Ind. Corp. Change, October 1, 2006; 15(5): 811 - 846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.