Search results

1

Schumpeterowska teoria przedsiębiorcy, czyli skąd się bierze pies

100%

Glapiński A.

Konsumpcja i Rozwój

|

2012

|

issue 1(2)

PL

W ujęciu Schumpetera rozwój gospodarczy następuje nie pod wpływem zmian przychodzących z zewnątrz, ale od wewnątrz, z własnej inicjatywy życia ekonomicznego. Zdefiniował on kapitalizm jako dynamiczny system, który w niekończącym się procesie innowacji zmienia ustawicznie swe metody produkcji oraz strukturę konsumpcji. Jest to wieczny wicher kreatywnej destrukcji (eternal gale of creative destruction). Autorami tych innowacji są szczególni ludzie o specyficznych cechach - przedsiębiorcy (entrepreneurs). Bycie przedsiębiorcą jest funkcją specjalną, przywilejem wąskiej grupy ludzi, którzy posiadają wyższe od normalnych zalety umysłu i woli. Ich postępowanie może wpływać na historię społeczną i kształtować nowe modele życia, nowe systemy wartości.

EN

In the Schumpeter's terms, the economic development takes place not under influence of changes coming from outside but from inside, on the economic life's own initiative. He has defined capitalism as a dynamic system, which, in an endless process of innovations, has been continuously changing methods of production and pattern of consumption. This is an eternal gale of creative destruction. Authors of those innovations are specific people with specific features - entrepreneurs. Being an entrepreneur is a special function, a privilege of a narrow group of people who have got higher than normal values of mind and will. Their conduct may affect the social history and shape new models of life, new systems of values.

2

Degeneracja instytucji kapitalistycznych w teorii Josepha A. Schumpetera

100%

Glapiński A.

Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

|

2002

|

vol. 180

|

issue 11-12

1-16

3

Metoda i program badawczy historii myśli ekonomicznej

100%

Glapiński A.

Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

|

2004

|

vol. 196

|

issue 11-12

1-17

EN

The article analyses development of the history of economic thought methodology. Two major models of practicing this discipline are distinguished: a nominalist one and a relationist one. The nominalist model, which had a dominating position at the early stage of development of economic sciences, was characteristic of physiocrats and classicists, and is still continued nowadays. The relationist model developed within the framework of the Scottish Historical School, the German Older and Younger Historical Schools, Marxism and the Sociology of Knowledge. The dispute among those models found its culmination in the Methodenstret of the late 19% century in polemics between the Austrian School and the Younger Historical School. It concerned the methodological status of the science of economics and, by the same token, its history. A nomothetic, deductive and synchronic approach was presented on the one hand, and an idiographic, inductive and diachronic approach on the other hand. On the one hand, a model was developed of practicing history of economics as an internal history of logical self-improvement of economic theory through creative effort of subsequent generations of economists. On the other hand, 2 model of the economic theory was proposed as an exogenous history covering development of the theory of economics in connection with social development and the history of other social sciences. The dispute over methodology in the history of economic thought has been wrapped up in writings by M, Weber and, especially, by J.A. Schumpeter. Then, the article analyses the way in which historians of economics make use of achievements of subsequent stages of development of contemporary philosophy of science and various theories of knowledge development. It examines possibilities for application of the KR. Popper, T.S. Kuhn and I. Lakatos model in history of economics research. Reasons for popularity of the Lakatos model among economists and historians of economics are pointed out.

4

Kwestie metodologiczne podejścia ewolucyjnego w ekonomii

100%

Glapiński A.

Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

|

2013

|

vol. 264

|

issue 5-6

5-17

EN

The article aims to identify and analyze some basic methodological problems related to a rapidly developing approach to economics known as evolutionary economics. The author examines how this approach is likely to evolve in the future and what research potential it holds for modern economics. According to the author, evolutionary economics is fraught with a number of methodological difficulties. He describes evolutionary economics as classically endogenous in nature. Evolutionary economics seeks to explain processes related to the internal transformation of knowledge about decision-making, production methods, organizational forms of business, consumer behavior and business psychology. In the neoclassical approach, all these parameters are treated as constant, while in evolutionary economics they are subject to analysis, proceeding from the assumption that they change as a result of evolutionary processes, the author says. The mechanism of this evolution is the main focus of evolutionary economics. Therefore, when analyzing economic systems, evolutionary economists focus their attention on changes and new elements, Glapiński says. The main methodological difficulty related to defining the research focus of evolutionary economics is that this approach needs to be set apart from other scientific disciplines studying economic and evolutionary processes, such as sociology, social anthropology, economic history, institutional economics, social psychology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral biology, and evolutionary biology. Evolutionary economics is concerned with the dynamics of past and present processes as well as with the organization and functioning of economies, in particular the origin and functioning of the Western model of capitalism. Evolutionary economists seek to explain economic events by making references to past events and finding causal relationships applying to behaviors as well as the transformation of behaviors and institutions. Evolutionary economists make assumptions about economic factors and actors, including those about irreversible and spontaneous changes in behavior. These assumptions mean that evolutionary economics has a purely empirical orientation, the author says, and, consequently, its main weakness is that it is difficult to derive simple mathematical models from these assumptions. This breeds a number of further methodological problems. One of them is that evolutionary economics has low capacity for formulating falsified hypotheses, which reduces its credibility and status, according to Glapiński – at least under the widely followed Popperian interpretation of the “scientificality” of theories (Austrian-born British philosopher and economist Karl Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist/inductivist form of the scientific method in favor of empirical falsification). Another reason for the criticism against evolutionary economics is that evolutionary theories are eclectic in nature, Glapiński says. This stems from the fact that economic evolution is related to evolutionary processes lying outside the economic system, which prompts attempts by economists to enter “neighboring” disciplines. Yet another weakness results from the basically empiricist and historicist nature of research in evolutionary economics, the author says, which often leads to a situation in which there is no clear distinction between economic theory and economic/business history. These methodological weaknesses and theoretical difficulties explain why a number of competitive theoretical syntheses have emerged over the last century, Glapiński says. Over the past decade or so, evolutionary economics has departed from the kind of synthesis pursued by the precursors of evolutionism, according to the author. He concludes that evolutionary economics has good prospects for development resulting from the dynamic development of detailed studies of evolutionary processes in various areas of industry, services and consumption as well as from research into the development of export markets and consumer behavior.

PL

Problem w tym, że żaden z tych poszczególnych elementów wyjaśniania nie może być wyjaśnieniem dominującym, bowiem zaprzeczałoby to samemu założeniu istnienia ogólnego mechanizmu ewolucyjnego. Mechanizm wyjaśniania ewolucjonistycznego musi więc zakładać założenia dotyczące czynników (aktorów) ekonomicznych, zawierające mechanizm zmiany ich zachowań w nieodwracalny sposób i poprzez samoczynny proces. Z założeń tych wynika czysto empiryczna orientacja ekonomii ewolucyjnej, a w konsekwencji główną jej słabością, rodzącą wiele dalszych problemów metodologicznych jest oczywista trudność prostego wywiedzenia z tych założeń modeli matematycznych. Inną ważną trudnością i słabością jest niska zdolność tej ekonomii do formułowania falsyfikowanych hipotez, co z powszechnie przyjętego dziś popperowskiego punktu widzenia na „naukowość” teorii, obniża jej wiarygodność i status. Kolejną przyczyną słabości i powodem krytyk jest eklektyczność teorii ewolucjonistycznych, wynikająca z naturalnego faktu, że ewolucja ekonomiczna jest związana z procesami ewolucyjnymi leżącymi na zewnątrz systemu ekonomicznego i nieuchronne są tu próby (wbrew ewolucjonistycznym zasadom podejścia endogenicznego) wkraczania ekonomisty na pola innych, „sąsiadujących” dyscyplin. Inna słabość wynika z zasadniczego empirycystycznego i historycystycznego charakteru badań ekonomii ewolucyjnej, co powoduje często brak klarownego rozróżnienia teorii ekonomicznej od historii gospodarczej czy biznesowej. Powyższe słabości metodologiczne i trudności teoretyczne spowodowały w ubiegłym stuleciu powstanie przedwczesnych, konkurujących ze sobą, syntez teoretycznych. Wnioski i konkluzje wynikające z artykułu dotyczą perspektyw rozwojowych ekonomii ewolucyjnej. W ostatnich kilkunastu latach wyraźnie odchodzi ona od wielkich syntez w rodzaju tych, które tworzyli prekursorzy ewolucjonizmu. Perspektywy jej rozwoju dotyczą obecnie dynamicznie rozwijających się studiów szczegółowych, analizujących procesy ewolucyjne w poszczególnych dziedzinach przemysłu, usług, konsumpcji, kształtowania się rynków zbytu czy zachowań konsumenckich.

5

Post-Crisis Economic Policy. Innovation Based Growth

100%

Glapiński A.

Journal of Management and Financial Sciences

|

2011

|

vol. 4

|

issue 5

7-15

EN

Crises are not only natural but also indispensable in the capitalist market system. It is during the crisis when there is a natural selection of the most effective organisational, institutional and technological solutions. The decline in the growth dynamics is a crucial problem in highly developed economies. The task of an abrupt business recovery of innovativeness requires the implementation of reforms and restructuring on the basis on a new economic paradigm. Business policy based on the public sector growing deficit and low interest rates leading to fiscal crisis and inflation should be replaced by the policy stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation through fiscal stimuli. This policy has to include the facilitations in the area of establishment and liquidation of companies, labour market liberalisation, tax and credit stimulation of innovation, organisation and financing of high standard education and science, and at the same time due care of employment and use of the human factor.

Refine search results

3 Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics

1 Journal of Management and Financial Sciences

1 Konsumpcja i Rozwój

1 2013

1 2012

1 2011

1 2004

1 2002

5 Glapiński A.

Schumpeterowska teoria przedsiębiorcy, czyli skąd się bierze pies

Degeneracja instytucji kapitalistycznych w teorii Josepha A. Schumpetera

Metoda i program badawczy historii myśli ekonomicznej

Kwestie metodologiczne podejścia ewolucyjnego w ekonomii

Post-Crisis Economic Policy. Innovation Based Growth