Machlup’s article reconstructs Schumpeter’s methodological position across four decades. It starts from the apparent contrast between the young defender of mathematical economics and the later advocate of historically informed business-cycle analysis, but treats that contrast as misleading. Schumpeter’s durable aim was to coordinate theory, history, and statistics according to the problem at hand, not to crown one method as supreme.
Yet those who know Schumpeter’s work well will know that his was not an evolution from the youthful keenness of a mathematical turn of mind to the mature perspective of a historical one. For they know that Schumpeter never lost the one and never lacked the other.
The article’s central theme is methodological pluralism disciplined by analytical rigor. Machlup presents Schumpeter as hostile to the sectarian spirit of the Methodenstreit, in which theorists, historians, mathematical economists, and institutionalists treated their own procedure as the only scientific one. Tolerance, however, is not vagueness: abstract theory, statistical inquiry, and historical description each become useful only when assigned to suitable questions.
The social sciences, said Schumpeter, suffer from two deep-seated and pernicious ills: “first, from that almost childish narrow-mindedness which regards its own method of work as the only possible one, wishes to make it the universal one, and considers that one’s foremost task is to annihilate all others in holy anger; second, from that complete lack of even elementary knowledge of all branches of learning outside one’s own.”
Machlup then traces the epistemological basis of this stance. Schumpeter’s early work made economics a quantitative science of functional relations among measurable magnitudes, but he did not remain a simple formalist. He first tried to substitute mathematical interdependence for causal explanation, then increasingly accepted causal language, mechanisms, and motives when concrete problems required them. In both phases, the key instrument is the model: exact because simplified, arbitrary in construction, yet meaningful only when fitted to phenomena.
This also shapes Schumpeter’s view of facts and verification. Machlup stresses that Schumpeter rejects both pure apriorism and naïve empiricism. Facts stimulate, discipline, and enrich theory, but they do not organize themselves; historical chronicles and time series cannot automatically yield laws. Statistical work is indispensable, yet its logical power is limited where many disturbances operate at once.
It follows that the claim usually made for statistical induction and verification must be qualified. Material exposed to so many disturbances as ours is, does not fulfill the logical requirements of the process of induction.
On this basis Machlup explains Schumpeter’s affinity with econometrics. Mathematics alone does not prove economics, and numerical measurement does not replace theory. Rather, quantitative theory identifies relations whose magnitudes statistics may later estimate, while empirical anomalies can force revised models. This is why Schumpeter could admire Walrasian equilibrium, Schmollerian historical research, mathematical economics, and institutional detail without inconsistency.
The discussion of statics and dynamics shows method turning into substantive economics. Static analysis studies circular flow and equilibrium adjustment under given conditions. Dynamic analysis asks how capitalism changes from within, especially through innovations introduced by entrepreneurs. Schumpeter’s distinction is therefore methodological as well as historical: equilibrium theory illuminates some problems, while profit, interest, cycles, and capitalist evolution require a theory of discontinuous change.
Development in this sense is “a distinct phenomenon, entirely foreign to what may be observed in the circular flow or in the tendency toward equilibrium. It is spontaneous and discontinuous change in the channels of the flow. . . .”
Machlup closes by clarifying two further implications. Schumpeter’s methodological individualism is a rule for constructing explanations from individual action where appropriate, not a political doctrine of laissez-faire. Likewise, his insistence on pure science does not withdraw economics from public life; it means policy judgment should rest on disciplined understanding rather than immediate advocacy. The resulting portrait is of a pluralist without looseness: abstraction, history, statistics, and theoretical imagination all have claims, but none has a monopoly.
This work was divided into 10 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 10 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian