I’ve written before on government attempts to stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation through subsidies, prizes, tax incentives, state-funded science parks and incubators, and similar policies. Both theory and evidence suggest that these programs are unlikely to be
always fail because they focus on building science parks and top-down clusters. Policy makers believe that by erecting fancy buildings and providing subsidies to select industries and venture capitalists, they can create innovation hubs. This is the wrong approach; what needs to be done instead is to
A new paper by Steven Kreft and Russell Sobel, “Public Policy, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Freedom” ( Cato Journal, Fall 2005 ), examines geographically (in the US, primarily on the East and West coasts), as is innovation more generally , and it’s not clear that VC can flow freely to those areas
highly innovative and creative. What is your take on this particular case? Klein: Innovation is a complex and fascinating subject and there is no single path to however, something we know relatively little about, although much of macroeconomic policy-making is of course predicated on a market failure view. Klein: I agree.
and Markets , focused on organizational economics, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and the economics of institutions. Regular readers of the Mises blog may noticed that while there are many excellent blogs on economics, law, and public policy, there are relatively few on organization, strategy, and management. We hope
theories of production and exchange, firm strategy and organization, and public policy and administration. I also distinguish the judgment-based approach from the by contrast, the entrepreneur as a speculator, coordinator, allocator, and innovator was always what Mises (1949: 326) called the “driving force of the market.” of topics in entrepreneurship theory, the applications of entrepreneurship and innovation, public policy, and related topics in strategy, organization, and
at the cost of loans that would have otherwise been made to more profitable and/or innovative firms. Furthermore, SBA lending in a given county results in negative income growth in neighboring counties. Given the popularity of pro-small business policies, our findings should give reason for policymakers and their constituents to
These sorts of institutional arrangements are part of a dynamic, entrepreneurial, innovative market economy, not impediments to it. The complaint that real rigidities endogenously through the actions of profit-seeking entrepreneurs and don’t justify policy intervention to offset the effects of monetary shocks, such as a change in the
enough in the past for that wrongness to get missed. But consider a more recent innovation: money market funds. Such funds are just a particular type of mutual fund Prosperity (1994), “there are two different kinds of economists professors and policy entrepreneurs,” and they are “radically distinct species.” The “professors”
Static vs. Dynamic Efficiency in Antitrust Analysis” ( Contemporary Economic Policy 3: 21–34). Writes High: Judge Robert Bork holds two opposing attitudes towards earn exorbitant rates of return. They’ve shown what big business has really done: innovated and kept prices low. They’ve shown that mergers make economic sense. Where
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.