Entrepreneurists and Firmists: Knight vs. The Modern Theory of the Firm

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Patrick Gunning

Frank Knight was a “grand theorist.” Like other grand theorists from Adam Smith to Friedrich A. Hayek, his interests extended beyond economics. In economics, his major writings focused on the most general problems of the discipline, his goal being to show the merits and limitations of the free enterprise system. He took a special interest in intersubjective uncertainty and the accompanying problem of agency. To benefit from an economic transaction an individual must rely on others (agents, broadly speaking) to perform actions even though he or she cannot be certain that the others will decide to perform the actions. Agency, in the broadest sense, is present in all relationships that are properly defined as economic. Knight apparently recognized that both the classical liberal's trust in free enterprise and the interventionist's distrust stem from their different views of the agency problem and of how best to solve it. Accordingly, he made the problem a centerpiece of his investigation of free enterprise in his celebrated Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (1921). The agency problem also plays an important role in the modern, or new institutionalist, theory of the firm. The new institutionalists aim to show that some observable economic relationship, rule or procedure in an organization, most notably a Coasean firm, is a result of the efforts of individuals to deal with the agency problem.

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolai J. Foss

In his contribution to the 1987 conference that celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of Ronald Coase's “The Nature of the Firm” (1937), Harold Demsetz noted that from the birth of modern economics to 1970, “only two works seem to have been written about the theory of the firm that have altered the perspectives of the profession: Knight's Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1921) and Coase's ‘The Nature of the Firm’” (Demsetz 1993, in Williamson and Winter 1993, p. 159). It is easy to feel uncomfortable with this observation. First, Coase's article was ignored for decades. Second, Knight's book did not receive much attention because of its theory of economic organization, but because of its statement of the theory of perfect competition (Stigler 1957; Machovec 1995), its distinction between risk and uncertainty, and its theory of profits (see, e.g., Boulding 1942 and Papandreou 1952).'


Science ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 144 (3624) ◽  
pp. 1293-1293
Author(s):  
David B. Charlton

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-182
Author(s):  
Nimai M. Mehta

This paper returns to Adam Smith's much maligned distinction of productive versus unproductive labour to flesh out a dimension of capital productivity that has been missed by the modern theory of production and welfare. The puzzle lies in Smith's use of a binary measurement scale to suggest opposing productivity, and household welfare outcomes obtained with a durable versus non-durable good. A durable good generates a permanent fund of labour savings and service spillovers over time. This dimension of productivity exists separate from, and beyond, any marginal productivity attributed to capital or labour services within the neoclassical production function. And, it forms the basis of improvements in household welfare that Smith described in the Wealth of Nations – in terms of continual net increases in the consumption-production possibility frontier enjoyed by the household, as a result of service spillovers obtained with a durable good over time. In contrast, no such spillovers are obtained with a non-durable good. A preference-bias for non-durable goods, instead, proves to be welfare-reducing – by having households under-invest and/or fail in maintaining the accumulated stock of durable-goods-as-capital. Both lead to a loss of production-consumption possibilities available within the household economy. An exploration of Smith's concern with 'unproductive labour' brings back into focus the broad set of behavioural traits and ethical-legal restraints that underlie economic progress and have been missed by neoclassical theory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document