Marx on entrepreneurship: A note



This paper argues that in mainstream economics the concept of entrepreneurship is imposed by the theoretical framework adopted in order to justify the source of profits. In contrast, in Marx’s analysis there is a consistent theory of profit which inevitably leads to a specific theory of entrepreneurship. (JEL: B10, B14, B21)


entrepreneurship profit theories 


  1. Barreto H., The Entrepreneur in Microeconomic Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. Blaug M., Economic Theory in Retrospect, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. —, Economic History and the History of Economics, New York: University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. Ebner A., “Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: From Classical Political Economy to Economic Sociology”,Journal of Economic Studies, 2005,32(3), pp. 256–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawley F.B., Enterprise and the Productive Process, New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1907.Google Scholar
  6. Heilbroner R., The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, New York: Norton, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. Ioannidis S.,Competition, Market and Democracy: A Critique to New-Austrians Economic Theory, Athens: Karagiorga’s Foundation, 1993 (in Greek).Google Scholar
  8. Knight F.H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1921.Google Scholar
  9. Marshall A. [1890], Principles of Economics, London: MacMillan, 1959.Google Scholar
  10. Marx K. [1867],Capital, Vol. I, New York: International Publishers, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. — [1869],Theories of Surplus Value, Parts I, II, and III, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. — [1894],Capital, Vol. III, New York: International Publishers, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. Mill J.S. [1848], Principles of Political Economy, London: Routledge & Kegan, 1965.Google Scholar
  14. Naples M. I. andAslanbeigui N., “What Does Determine the Profit Rate? The Neoclassical Theories Presented in Introductory Textbooks”,Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1996,20(1), pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
  15. Obrinsky M., Profit Theory & Capitalism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. Pesciarelli E., “Smith, Bentham, and the Development of Contrasting Ideas on Entrepreneurship”,History of Political Economy, 1989,21(3), pp. 238–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pierson G. N., Principles of Economics, London: MacMillan, 1902.Google Scholar
  18. Prendergast R., “Schumpeter, Hegel and the Vision of Development”,Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2005,30(2), pp. 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosdolsky R., The Making of Marx’s Capital, London: Pluto, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. Rosenberg N., Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. Say J.B. [1803], Treatise on Political Economy, New York: C. Princep, 1964.Google Scholar
  22. Schiller B.R., The Economy Today, New York: McGraw Hill, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Schumpeter J.A.[1911], The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. —, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1947.Google Scholar
  25. —, History of Economic Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  26. Shaikh A., “The Power of Profit”,Social Research, 2004,71(2), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
  27. Smith A. [1776], Wealth of Nations, New York: Modern Library, 1965.Google Scholar
  28. Spencer M.H., Contemporary Microeconomics, New York: Worth Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. Walras L. [1874], Eléments of Pure Economics, London: Allen & Unwin, 1954.Google Scholar
  30. Walsh V. andGram H., Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations