This study examines the relationship between debates in the biological and evolutionary sciences in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and J. A. Schumpeter's theories of socio-economic dynamics.
In the late 19th century, the idea that differences in individual ability had created the hierarchy of social classes was gradually accepted among conservatives, and traditional egalitarianism came to be rejected. Schumpeter's theories of socio-economic dynamics were also based on the idea that entrepreneurial success was to be attributed not to the possession of property, as assumed by Marx, but to entrepreneurs' innate ability to persistently accomplish their plans.
Schumpeter's assumption that “the function of the entrepreneur itself cannot be inherited” is also investigated as the most important basis for refuting Marx’s view of class. The current study suggests that the idea Schumpeter employed in trying to challenge Marx's class theory has interesting similarities to Galton's idea of “regression.” However, although Schumpeter addressed the idea that entrepreneurial ability does not persist over generations, he did not propose any clear mechanism to explain why this ability cannot be inherited but only highlighted an observable tendency in his theory of economic development. The reason for his failure to offer a conclusive theory was derived from his strategy of using confusing biological assumptions about heredity. As a result, his explanation of the inheritance of entrepreneurial ability is quite confused. This weakened his counterargument to Marx's theory to some extent.
The study also examines the ideology behind Schumpeter's vision. Although he denied the ordinary principle of equal chance, his ideology is considered as a variant of the concept of equality of opportunity based on a multigenerational perspective.
This article examines Mill's concept of an association in the light of management and organization theory, particularly in terms of commitment, identification, and cooperation. Generally, laborers who work for an association do so voluntarily and are committed to the organization's success. Profits are divided among the laborers in the association, incentivizing them to increase their commitment. Moreover, their commitment grows as a result of overlapping interests between capitalists and laborers, or among laborers themselves. Mill also believed that members of an association are willing to contribute to the organization because they have a desire to stand in solidarity with their fellow humans.
Mill adopted three benefits of division of labor from Smith—increased dexterity, time saved in changing jobs, and the invention of machinery, and he advocated the Babbage principle. The Babbage principle refers to the efficient use of laborers with diverse abilities. Mill believed that people with different personalities and abilities should be appropriately placed and compensated with different wages even in an association.
According to Mill, working together in an association improves laborers' moral qualities, which leads to an increase in their capacity for cooperation. The capacity for cooperation refers to the ability to faithfully carry out tasks assigned to a person. When laborers improve their capacity for cooperation, they contribute to the organization voluntarily and without the need for close supervision from managers. Mill provides less detail than Barnard about the managerial functions that sustain cooperation. This may be because Mill believed that as laborers' moral qualities improved, the need for supervision would diminish.
This article comprehensively examines Alfred Marshall's thoughts on labour and elucidates the conflict between his illumination of the distinctiveness of labour and his neoclassicist faith. Marshall viewed a rise in the 'standard of life' as key to workers' progress, and in this context, he stressed the significance of labour as an end in life. Furthermore, Marshall attached importance to the effect of labour activity as such on workers' welfare and their subjectivity towards labour performance. Marshall's illuminating insights here could conduce to a perception of the nature of capitalistic labour that generally rules out the market determinacy of wages and other working conditions and renders the intervention of socio-political forces in their determination inevitable, although Marshall himself did not gain this awareness, and his theory of labour markets was flawed. Marshall also specified certain peculiarities regarding labour. Nevertheless, he believed in a general economic law that autonomously regulates labour markets as well as other markets into equilibrium cum normal wages. On this neoclassicist faith, Marshall criticised trade unionists' actions and the legal regulation of industrial relations as major obstacles to the operation of that law. He applied this attitude to his discussions on 'fair wages'. Marshall's adherence to neoclassicist tenets on the properties of labour markets thwarted the development of his thoughts on capitalistic industrial relations founded on his insights into the distinguishing features of labour. Marshall's illumination of the distinctiveness of labour and his neoclassicist faith thus constituted a deep conflict. Close inquiry into this issue is greatly important for appreciating not only the characteristics of Marshall's economic thinking but also the evolution of neoclassical economics.