Search

Este artigo discute como Kirzner moldou sua argumentação acerca da publicidade na teoria econômica em diferentes momentos da carreira, embora suas ideias sobre o tema tenham permanecido as mesmas. Explica-se que esta diferenciação argumentativa resultou da existência de dois públicos consecutivos a que Kirzner se dirigiu, a Escola Neoclássica e o Subjetivismo Radical. A existência desses dois grupos fez com que o autor alterasse sua defesa da teoria misesiana para a propaganda enquanto ferramenta de concorrência empresarial no processo de mercado. Conclui-se que Kirzner se direcionou a suas audiências na tentativa de influenciá-las, mas sem ter buscado se incluir entre tais grupos, usando termos comuns a esses auditórios para demarcar sua posição diferenciada com relação a eles.

Resumo O artigo apresenta o pensamento econômico de Israel Kirzner expresso nas resenhas de livros, comentários e respostas que ele escreveu ao longo da carreira. Propõe investigar e sistematizar as características do pensamento econômico do autor que emergem nesse material: sua relação com a praxeologia misesiana, outras perspectivas para a teoria de atividade empresarial e sua percepção de diferentes correntes econômicas. Justifica-se a escolha desse material pelo engajamento profissional de Kirzner, que procurou dialogar com outras escolas econômicas. Abstract The paper presents the economic thought of Israel Kirzner, expressed in book reviews, commentaries, and responses that he has written throughout his career. It proposes to investigate and systematize the characteristics of the author’s economic thought that emerge in this material: his relationship with the Misesian praxeology, other perspectives of the theory of entrepreneurship, and his perception of different economic schools of thought. The material chosen is justified by the professional engagement of Kirzner, who sought to dialogue with other economic schools.

espanolEste articulo muestra la existencia de un particular estilo argumentativo que impregna la obra de Israel Kirzner, aqui llamado “enfoque comparativo”. Si bien este metodo no es exclusivo del autor, el articulo llama la atencion sobre la particularidad de que este tipo de dialogo es un lugar comun en su obra. Esto se verifica por la forma en que Kirzner recupera de manera recurrente y preliminar otras aproximaciones en cada tema antes de plantear su propia exposicion teorica. El articulo interpreta esta iniciativa como un compromiso profesional, considerando el contexto de resurgimiento de la Escuela Austriaca en la decada de 1970, movimiento del que Kirzner fue uno de sus lideres. En esta interpretacion, el esfuerzo del autor por referirse sistematicamente a otros enfoques teoricos puede entenderse como una forma de acercarse a ellos y a su audiencia, ampliando el alcance del Austrianismo. Esto es consecuencia de la busqueda de Kirzner de aclarar y difundir la teoria austriaca, una indicacion de su compromiso con los economistas. portuguesEste artigo procura mostrar a existencia de um estilo argumentativo particular que permeia a obra de Israel Kirzner, aqui denominado de “abordagem comparativa”. Conquanto tal metodo nao seja exclusivo do autor, chama-se a atencao para a particularidade desta forma de dialogo ter lugar comum em sua obra. Isto e verificado pelo resgate preliminar e recorrente de outras abordagens acerca de um tema antes de Kirzner passa-lo para sua propria apreciacao teorica. O artigo interpreta esta iniciativa como postura de engajamento profissional, considerando o contexto de ressurgencia da Escola Austriaca na decada de 1970, movimento que teve Kirzner como um de seus lideres. Nesta leitura, o esforco do autor em referenciar sistematicamente outras abordagens teoricas pode ser entendido como forma de aproximacao a elas e de seu publico, ampliando o alcance do Austrianismo. Isso reflete a busca de Kirzner em esclarecer e divulgar a teoria austriaca, um indicativo do seu engajamento entre os economistas EnglishThis article shows the existence of a special argumentative style that permeates the work of Israel Kirzner, here called “comparative approach”. Although this method is not exclusive to the author, the attention is drawn to the particularity that this form of dialogue has a common place in Kirzner’s work. This is verified by the preliminary and recurring rescue of other theoretical approaches to a theme before Kirzner passed his own assessment. The article proposes to interpret this positioning as a professional engagement initiative, considering the context of resurgence of the Austrian School in the 1970’s, a movement that Kirzner had as one of its leaders. In this reading, the Kirzner’s effort to systematically refer to other theoretical approaches can be understood as a way of approaching them and their audience, expanding the reach of Austrianism. This reflects Kirzner’s quest to clarify and disseminate Austrian theory, an indicative of his engagement among economists.

This thesis has as its central purpose to contribute to the debate on the interface between marketing and entrepreneurship. They are two independent and well-established disciplines in the Administration area, but they present spaces for dialogue that provide many possibilities for reflection. In our construction, we followed a path to support the following thesis: the marketing activity has an entrepreneurial dimension that, when recognized together with its more conventional dimensions, allows to analyze the marketing process more broadly and completely. This proposition was instigated by the question of how the marketing activity can be analyzed, considering its interdisciplinarity with the entrepreneurship debate, since the marketing area represents our locus of research. To consolidate our vision, we are anchored in the entrepreneurial perspective of Israel Kirzner, a theorist of Austrian economics, whose discussion enables a different approach to this interdisciplinarity, based mainly on the consideration of the element of entrepreneurial alertness in the context of marketing. As well, we are based on the theoretical development established in the entrepreneurial marketing approach to demarcate its understanding and reaffirm the focus of convergence and emphasis on the discussion of entrepreneurial elements inherent to the marketing activity. Based on these central foundations, we offer a procedural view of the marketing activity in the configuration of a conceptual framework and contemplate an initial effort of empirical investigation in a market context (in the pet market segment). We conclude that this lens has theoretical, academic, analytical and empirical support, although new empirical efforts are one of the main guidelines for future research agendas. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES Essa tese tem como propósito central contribuir para o debate sobre a interface entre marketing e empreendedorismo. São duas disciplinas independentes e bem estabelecidas da área de Administração, mas que apresentam espaços de diálogo que oportunizam muitas possibilidades de reflexões. Na nossa construção, trilhamos um caminho para respaldar a seguinte tese: a atividade de marketing possui um dimensionamento empreendedor que, quando reconhecido em conjunto aos seus dimensionamentos mais convencionais, permite analisar o processo de marketing de forma mais ampla e completa. Essa proposição foi instigada pela questão de como a atividade de marketing pode ser analisada, considerando sua interdisciplinaridade com o debate de empreendedorismo, já que a área de marketing representa nosso lócus de pesquisa. Para consolidar nossa visão, nos ancoramos na perspectiva empreendedora de Israel Kirzner, teórico da Economia Austríaca, cuja discussão viabiliza uma abordagem distinta dessa interdisciplinaridade, a partir da consideração do elemento de alerta empreendedor no contexto de marketing. Como também, nos embasamos no desenvolvimento teórico estabelecido na vertente de marketing empreendedor para demarcar sua compreensão e reafirmar a abordagem de convergência e ênfase de discussão de elementos empreendedores inerentes à atividade de marketing. Com base nesses fundamentos centrais, oferecemos uma visão processual da atividade de marketing na configuração de um framework conceitual e contemplamos um esforço inicial de investigação empírica em contexto de mercado (no segmento de mercado pet). Concluímos que essa lente possui sustentação teórica, acadêmica, analítica e empírica, ainda que novos esforços empíricos sejam uma das principais orientações para agendas futuras de pesquisa.

A Socioeconomia, abordagem econômica baseada em princípios da Sociologia, apresenta-se como alternativa à Economia Neoclássica. Rejeitando os extremos entre individualismo e holismo metodológico, inicia a análise da tomada de decisão a partir das identidades sociais em que os agentes estão embebidos. A Economia Austríaca, e dentro dela sua corrente kirzneriana, também propõe uma alternativa à Economia Neoclássica. Pautada no individualismo metodológico, analisa as condições subjetivas no processo decisório. Este trabalho investiga, na História do Pensamento Econômico, se há aderência entre essas propostas teóricas para a tomada de decisão, Socioeconomia e abordagem kirzneriana, conquanto suas diferenças de metodologia e de conceituação de mercado. A conclusão é dividida em três pontos: (i) existe aderência por críticas e sugestões compartilhadas entre as abordagens; (ii) a incorporação das ideias de Kirzner na Socioeconomia depende de fatores metodológicos (iii) a incorporação da Socioeconomia na abordagem kirzneriana é possível pelo subjetivismo dessa última.

Daniel Klein (Klein 1997, Klein and Orsborn 2009 and Klein and Briggeman forthcoming) and Israel Kirzner (forthcoming) have been engaged in a debate concerning how economists should understand and use the terms “coordination” and “economic goodness”. Klein and Briggeman (forthcoming) contend that Kirzner suffers from excessive ambition scientifically. The authors claim Kirzner’s reliance and identification with “the Misesian image of science” threatens to discredit his more sensible contributions (e.g., market processes are driven towards progress by competitive entrepreneurial discovery). We offer a response to Klein and Briggeman’s claim that loose, vague and indeterminate forms of economic reasoning make for a more robust political economy. In doing so, we also explain the theoretical context surrounding Kirzner’s theory of the entrepreneurial market process. While we agree with Klein and Briggeman’s critique of scientism and formalism, we emphasize the nature of the debates over market theory and the price system that Kirzner was engaging in order to understand the reasons behind his methods and the theoretical insights they provide. Rather than the source of his failure, we view Kirzner’s “excessive ambitions” to provide a scientific foundation of the market process as the source of his great success as an economic theorist.

It is uncontroversial that poor public policy undermines entrepreneurial behavior and reduces public welfare. However, the exact mechanisms by which policy interventions affect entrepreneurial behavior are often unclear. This paper contrasts two competing theories of the relation between public policy and entrepreneurship: the theory of entrepreneurial incentives suggested by Israel Kirzner, and the theory of economic calculation and judgment proposed by Ludwig von Mises and Joseph T. Salerno. I argue that the alertness theory provides inadequate grounding for policy analysis because it rests on a paradoxical approach to opportunity discovery. The calculation view, on the other hand, is well-suited for application to policy problems, as it rests on a realistic view of entrepreneurial decision-making.

O artigo procura entender a importância do estudo da História do Pensamento Econômico e da existência do pluralismo de metodologias em Economia. Para isso, levanta dois argumentos associados à Escola Austríaca: a abordagem de Kirzner para a descoberta de oportunidades no processo de mercado como analogia ao que acontece na relação entre teoria econômica e História do Pensamento Econômico, e a defesa da liberdade por Hayek como incentivo à chance de variação e fuga do modo convencional de se fazer ciência econômica. Sob uma perspectiva austríaca, tanto a História do Pensamento Econômico quanto o pluralismo metodológico podem ser mais apreciados pela profissão. The paper aims to analyze the role that history of economic thought and methodological pluralism can play in Economics. In order to achieve such a goal, it presents two arguments related to the Austrian School of Economics: the role played by the entrepreneur in Kirzner's approach to the market process as an analogy to what is seen in the history of economic thought, and Hayek's arguments for liberty as a defense of freedom of research and the existence of methodological pluralism. It is argued that, under the Austrian point of view, history of economic thought and methodological pluralism might be more appreciated by economists.

This paper analyzes the theory of "entrepreneurial incentives" in the work of Israel Kirzner. It argues that there is a logical problem with the notion of profit opportunities as exogenous causal agents: Without additional assumptions, the existence of opportunities alone does not sufficiently explain the alertness of entrepreneurs. The paper considers both stronger and weaker versions of this problem. It also questions the relation between entrepreneurial incentives and the tendency toward entrepreneurial success. Finally, it provides some commentary on the relevance of entrepreneurial incentives for an overall theory of the entrepreneur, and identifies several potential solutions to the problems discussed. © 2013 Baylor University.

Israel Kirzner has been one of the leaders in fashioning an Austrian school of economics. In his rendering of the Austrian school, one finds a marriage between Friedrich Hayek’s discourse with Ludwig von Mises’s deductive, praxeological image of science of Ludwig von Mises - a marriage that seems to us somewhat forced. The Misesian image of science stakes its claims to scientific status on purported axioms and categorical, 100-percent deductive truths, as well as the supposed avoidance of any looseness in evaluative judgments. In keeping with the praxeological style of discourse, Kirzner claims that his notion of coordination can be used as a clear-cut criterion of economic goodness. Kirzner wishes to claim that gainful entrepreneurial action in the market is always coordinative. We contend that Kirzner’s efforts to be categorical and to avoid looseness are unsuccessful. We argue that looseness inheres in the economic discussion of the most important things, and associate that viewpoint with Adam Smith. We suggest that Hayek is much closer to Smith than to Mises, and that Kirzner’s invocations of Hayek’s discussions of coordination are spurious. In denying looseness and trying to cope with the brittleness of categorical claims, Kirzner becomes abstruse. His discourse erupts with problems. Kirzner has erred in rejecting the understanding of coordination held by Hayek, Ronald Coase, and their contemporaries in the field at large. Kirzner’s refraining from the looser Smithian perspective stems from his devotion to Misesianism. Beyond all the criticism, however, we affirm the basic thrust of what Kirzner says about economic processes. Once we give up the claim that voluntary profitable activity is always or necessarily coordinative, and once we make peace with the aesthetic aspect of the idea of concatenate coordination, the basic claims of Kirzner can be salvaged: Voluntary profitable activity is usually coordinative, and government intervention is usually discoordinative. But the Misesian image of science must be dropped.

Ludwig von Mises and Israel Kirzner are two of the most prominent scholars who have attempted to gain a richer understanding of how the invisible hand operates in coordinating the vast array of economic exchanges that occur on a daily basis in the actual imperfect world. These economists, among others, have sought to demonstrate how human behavior guided by prices, as well as monetary profits and losses, and under a system of private property would adjust and cope with the world's imperfections.

Piyasa süreci teorisi, Avusturya İktisat Okulu geleneğinin takipçileri tarafından, somut piyasaları açıklayabilmek amacıyla neo-klasik fiyat teorisine alternatif olarak geliştirilmiştir. Denge kavramına yoğunlaşan neo-klasik analizin tersine piyasa süreci teorisi, dengesizliği ve dengeye yönelimi incelemeye çalışır. Bunu yaparken, neo-klasik iktisadın fiyat teorisinde görmezden gelinen kısıtlı bilgi, zamanın getirdiği belirsizlik ve piyasada oluşan belirsizlikleri gidermede girişimciliğin rolü Israel Kirzner’ın analizinin temellerini oluşturur. Çalışmada Kirzner’ın rekabet ve girişimcilik teorisi, Mises ve Hayek’in katkılarıyla birlikte ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, bu yönüyle Kirzner’ın piyasa süreci teorisine bir giriş niteliği taşımaktadır.