IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jepppp/v5y2016i2p130-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Baumol’s productive and unproductive entrepreneurship after 25 years

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Boettke
  • Ennio Piano

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact of Baumol’s work on entrepreneurship has had on framing the economic development puzzle. Design/methodology/approach - – In many ways, the intuition behind the paper is straightforward. Entrepreneurs allocate their time and attention based on the relative payoffs they face in any given social setting. If the institutional environment rewards productive entrepreneurship, then the time and attention of entrepreneurial actors in the economy will be directed toward realizing the gains from trade and the gains from innovation. If, on the other hand, there are greater returns from the allocation of that time and attention toward rent-seeking and even criminal activity, alert individuals will respond to those incentives accordingly. The simplicity of the point being made is part of the brilliance in Baumol’s article. As with other classics in economics, once stated the proposition seems to be so basic it is amazing that others did not put it that way beforehand. Findings - – It has been 25 years since Baumol published his paper in theJournal of Political Economy, and as pointed out, it has had a significant scientific impact. But to put things in perspective, James Buchanan’s “An economic theory of clubs” published in 1965 has accumulated roughly 3,500 citations, F.A. Hayek’s “The use of knowledge in society,” published in 1945 has over 12,000, and Ronald Coase’s “The problem of social cost” published in 1960 has over 28,000 citations. So Baumol’s paper would put him in rather elite company. The great strength of the paper is to focus the attention on the relative payoffs of productive, unproductive and destructive entrepreneurial activity. But one of the most significant disappointments of the subsequent history of this paper is a methodological one. The comparative case study approach that Baumol employed did not result in a renewed appreciation for narrative forms of empirical research in political economy. It could legitimately be argued that the sort of questions about the fundamental institutional causes of economic growth and development can only be captured with these more historical methods. Attempts to force fit this analysis into a set of methodological tools which have already revealed themselves to be inadequate to do justice of the role of institutions and disregard the underlying cultural norms and beliefs that characterize human sociability. Originality/value - – In this paper, the authors will focus on the contribution made by Baumol’s 1990 paper on the field of comparative political economy, and in particular on the literature on transitional political economy. Section 2 places Baumol’s argument in the context of the failure of neoclassical growth theory. Section 3, the authors argue that although the Baumol framing was an improvement over the old comparative economic systems literature, contemporary transitional political economists have failed to fully realize the implications of the institutional revolution. They have therefore been unable to understand the causes of the heterogeneity of outcomes among those countries that transitioned from communism to the market economy in the 1990s. In Section 4, the authors argue that the political economy of transition will gain from a more sophisticated view of the economic process of the market economy, an appreciation of the entrepreneurial function, and a deeper understanding of the role of formal and informal institutions and their effect on entrepreneurship. The authors will illustrate the point with some examples from the recent history of the Russian political and economic transition. Credible commitment problems and the deficiencies of the institutional reforms of the early 1990s were responsible for the failure of reallocating the entrepreneurial talent that existed in the Soviet economy to productive economic activities. The framework can therefore be used to solve the puzzle of why the announced liberalization of Russian markets and privatization of previously state-owned resources led to economic stagnation, the growth of black markets, and the rise of organized crime, instead of economic development through the operations of smoothly operating markets. Section 5 briefly concludes.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Boettke & Ennio Piano, 2016. "Baumol’s productive and unproductive entrepreneurship after 25 years," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(2), pages 130-144, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jepppp:v:5:y:2016:i:2:p:130-144
    DOI: 10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter J. Boettke & Christopher J. Coyne & Peter T. Leeson, 2015. "Institutional stickiness and the New Development Economics," Chapters, in: Laura E. Grube & Virgil Henry Storr (ed.), Culture and Economic Action, chapter 6, pages 123-146, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Mancur Olson, 1996. "Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations Are Rich, and Others Poor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 3-24, Spring.
    3. Greif,Avner, 2006. "Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521480444, January.
    4. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    5. Anderson, Gary M & Boettke, Peter J, 1997. "Soviet Venality: A Rent-Seeking Model of the Communist State," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 93(1-2), pages 37-53, October.
    6. Durlauf, Steven N. & Quah, Danny T., 1999. "The new empirics of economic growth," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & M. Woodford (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 235-308, Elsevier.
    7. Claudia Williamson, 2009. "Informal institutions rule: institutional arrangements and economic performance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 371-387, June.
    8. Frye, Timothy & Shleifer, Andrei, 1997. "The Invisible Hand and the Grabbing Hand," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 354-358, May.
    9. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James A. Robinson, 2001. "The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1369-1401, December.
    10. Mancur Olson, Jr., 1995. "Why the Transition from Communism Is So Difficult," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 437-461, Fall.
    11. Andrei Shleifer & Daniel Treisman, 2005. "A Normal Country: Russia After Communism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 151-174, Winter.
    12. Gregory Mankiw, 1995. "The Growth of Nations," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 275-326.
    13. Jose V. Rodriguez Mora & John Hassler, 2000. "Intelligence, Social Mobility, and Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 888-908, September.
    14. Claudia R. Williamson & Carrie B. Kerekes, 2011. "Securing Private Property: Formal versus Informal Institutions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(3), pages 537-572.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Djula Borozan & Josip Arneric & Ilija Coric, 2017. "A comparative study of net entrepreneurial productivity in developed and post-transition economies," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 855-880, September.
    2. Dong, Zhiqiang & Wang, Xiaobing & Zhang, Tianhua & Zhong, Yuejun, 2022. "The effects of local government leadership turnover on entrepreneurial behavior," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Magnus Henrekson & Mikael Stenkula, 2022. "William J. Baumol: Innovative Contributor to Entrepreneurship Economics," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: Including a Symposium on the Work of William J. Baumol: Heterodox Inspirations and Neocla, volume 40, pages 107-131, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Minniti, Maria & Naudé, Wim & Stam, Erik, 2023. "Is Productive Entrepreneurship Getting Scarcer? A Reflection on the Contemporary Relevance of Baumol's Typology," IZA Discussion Papers 16408, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Trubnikov, Dmitrii, 2021. "What entrepreneurship is really “productive”? An alternative view on Baumol's typology," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 16(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rok Spruk & Mitja Kovac, 2018. "Inefficient Growth," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 9(2).
    2. Audrey Redford, 2020. "Property rights, entrepreneurship, and economic development," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 139-161, March.
    3. Neyapti, Bilin, 2013. "Modeling institutional evolution," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-16.
    4. Tomáš Evan & Ilya Bolotov, . "Measuring Mancur Olson: What is the Influence of Culture, Institutions and Policies on Economic Development?," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 0.
    5. Ilia Murtazashvili & Jennifer Murtazashvili, 2015. "Anarchy, self-governance, and legal titling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 287-305, March.
    6. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.
    7. Michelle Albert Vachris & Justin P. Isaacs, 2017. "The Role of Cultural Values in the Formation and Survival of Pro-Growth Institutions," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 32(Spring 20), pages 89-113.
    8. Cecchi, Francesco & Melesse, Mequanint Biset, 2016. "Formal law and customary change: A lab-in-field experiment in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-85.
    9. Thorsten Beck & Luc Laeven, 2006. "Institution building and growth in transition economies," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 157-186, June.
    10. Davis, Lewis S. & Williamson, Claudia R., 2016. "Culture and the regulation of entry," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 1055-1083.
    11. Alvarez-Diaz, Marcos & Caballero Miguez, Gonzalo, 2008. "The quality of institutions: A genetic programming approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 161-169, January.
    12. Boettke, Peter & Fink, Alexander, 2011. "Institutions first," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 499-504, December.
    13. Robbert Maseland, 2013. "Parasitical cultures? The cultural origins of institutions and development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 109-136, June.
    14. Russell S. Sobel & Christopher J. Coyne, 2011. "Cointegrating Institutions: The Time-Series Properties of Country Institutional Measures," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 111-134.
    15. Djankov, Simeon & Glaeser, Edward & La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003. "The new comparative economics," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 595-619, December.
    16. Cai, Meina & Caskey, Gregory W. & Cowen, Nick & Murtazashvili, Ilia & Murtazashvili, Jennifer Brick & Salahodjaev, Raufhon, 2022. "Individualism, economic freedom, and charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 868-884.
    17. Daniel D. Bonneau & Joshua C. Hall & Yang Zhou, 2022. "Institutional implant and economic stagnation: a counterfactual study of Somalia," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 483-503, March.
    18. Pitlik, Hans & Rode, Martin, 2017. "Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 575-598, September.
    19. Judit Kapas, 2017. "How Cultural Values Affect Economic Growth: A Critical Assessment Of The Literature," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 26(1), pages 265-285, june.
    20. Christopher J. Coyne & Claudia R. Williamson, 2012. "Purpose – This paper seeks to analyze empirically the net effect of trade openness on “economic culture”, measured by indicators of trust, respect, level of self-determination, and obedience. Openness," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 1(4), pages 22-49, April.

    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:eme:jepppp:v:5:y:2016:i:2:p:130-144. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.