Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) occupies a distinctive position in the history of economic thought—not only as a theorist of capitalism and innovation, but also as one of its most formidable historians.
His magnum opus in this domain is:
History of Economic Analysis (published posthumously, 1954)
This work is widely regarded as the most erudite and analytically demanding history of economics ever written.
Schumpeter’s approach to economic thought
Unlike textbook histories, Schumpeter treated economics as an evolving analytical science, not as ideology or policy advocacy.
Core principles of his method
-
Economics as analysis, not opinion
He focused on tools, concepts, and methods, separating them from political or moral views. -
Continuity over revolution
New theories refine and extend older ones; ideas rarely emerge ex nihilo. -
Great economists as system-builders
He evaluated thinkers by the coherence and analytical power of their systems.
Structure of History of Economic Analysis
1. Ancient & Medieval Economics
-
Aristotle, Scholastics, canon law
-
Defense of medieval thinkers as serious analysts (a radical stance at the time)
2. Classical Political Economy
-
Smith, Ricardo, Malthus
-
Praised Ricardo’s analytical rigor despite policy limitations
3. Marginal Revolution
-
Jevons, Menger, Walras
-
Schumpeter viewed this as a technical advance rather than a philosophical rupture
4. General Equilibrium & Formalism
-
Walras as a towering analytical figure
-
Mathematics as a language of precision, not ideology
5. From Marshall to Keynes
-
Marshall as a bridge-builder
-
Keynes treated respectfully but not as a singular revolutionary figure
Schumpeter’s judgments (often controversial)
-
Adam Smith: Great synthesizer, not a great analyst
-
Ricardo: Analytically superior to Smith
-
Marx: First-rate economist, regardless of political conclusions
-
Walras: One of the greatest economists ever
-
Keynes: Important, but less analytically fundamental than often claimed
Relationship to Schumpeter’s own economics
His historical work complements his core ideas from:
-
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
-
Concepts of innovation, entrepreneurship, and creative destruction
He saw capitalism as a dynamic, evolutionary system, something static equilibrium models struggled to capture.
How Schumpeter differs from other historians
| Historian | Style | Orientation |
|---|---|---|
| Schumpeter | Analytical, elitist, technical | Economics as science |
| Mark Blaug | Critical, methodological | Testing theories |
| Roncaglia | Pluralist, contextual | Ideas + institutions |
Comments