Author
Abstract
The central issue in this paper is the effect of alternative property rights on the flow of innovation. The basis for this issue arises from the fact that people prefera wider range of choices to a narrow one. The analysis is broken down into: the freedom to innovate, the power to innovate, the incentives to innovate, the implementation of innovation, and the evaluation of innovation. The line of reasoning in the paper is exampled by reference to the Yugoslav economy. The paper concludes that an essential problem of economic development is the freedom to search for and adopt a set of social institutions within which opportunities and incentives for innovation are enhanced. Specifically, labor participation in management collectivizes innovation, a purely individual phenomenon, and alienates the innovator from its outcome. In comparison with a private‐property, free‐market economy, self‐management reduces the number of potential innovators, their power to innovate, and incentives to innovate. Im Artikel werden die Zusammenhänge zwischen alternativen Eigentumsrechten und Innovationen analysiert, wobei davon ausgegangen wird, dass die Leute üblicherweise einen breiten Entscheidungsspielraum einem schmalen vorziehen. Die Analyse umfasst folgende Punkte: Freiräume für Innovationen, Innovationskraft, Anreize für Innovationen, Implementation von Innovationen und Evaluation von Innovationen. Anhand des Beispiels der jugoslawischen Wirtschaft wird dargestellt, dass das zentrale Problem der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in der Freiheit besteht, soziale Institutionen zu suchen und zu verwirklichen, in welchen die Möglichkeiten und Anreize für Innovationen vergrössert werden. Insbesondere wird gezeigt, dass durch die Arbeiterselbstverwaltung Innovationen ‐ an sich rein individuelle Phänomene ‐ kollektiviert werden und damit den Innovator vom Innovationsergebnis entfremden, so dass im Vergleich zu einer freien Marktwirtschaft mit privaten Eigentumsrechten die Zahl potentieller Innovatoren, deren Innovationskraft und die Anreize zu Innovationen reduziert werden. La discussion centrale de cette publication est l'effet du choix de droits ȩ la propriété sur le flux d'innovations. Cette discussion se base sur le fait que les gens préfèrent une plus grande étendue de choix ȩ une faible étendue. L'analyse est divisée en: liberié d'innovation, pouvoir d'innovation, objectifs d'innovation, exécution et évaluation des innovations. La ligne de raisonnement de cette publication est illustrée par référence ȩ l'éeonomie yougoslave. Les conclusions de cette publication sont que le problème central du développement économique est la liberté de rechercher et d'adopter un ensemble d'institutions sociales dans lesquelles les objectifs et opportu‐nités d'innovation sont accrus. Particulièrement, la participation travailliste dans la direction collectivise l'innovation, un phénomène purement individuel, et aliène l'innovateur de son résultat. En comparaison avec la propriété privée, l'éeonomie de marché libre, le self‐management réduit le nombre d'innovateurs potentiels, leur pouvoir d'innover et leurs objectifs ȩ innover.
Suggested Citation
Steve Pejovich**, 1987.
"Freedom, Property Rights and Innovation in Socialism,"
Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 461-475, November.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:40:y:1987:i:4:p:461-475
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.1987.tb00784.x
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Erich Weede, 1990.
"Ideas, Institutions and Political Culture in Western Development,"
Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(4), pages 369-389, October.
- Syed Tauseef Ali & Joseph H. Zhang & Farman Ali & Misraku Molla Ayalew & Muhammad Ullah, 2024.
"Ideological Imprints and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from China,"
Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1029-1068, March.
- Winiecki, Jan, 1991.
"Privatisation debates in Poland before and after communist demise: A comparative perspective,"
Kiel Working Papers
472, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:40:y:1987:i:4:p:461-475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0023-5962 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.