I. The background, 518. — II. Population and the labor force, 523. — III. Industrial production — concepts and procedures, 532. — IV. Industrial production in the Federal Republic and in Soviet Germany, 537. — V. Conclusion, 543.

I. Introduction: the problems, 285. — II. The assumptions, 286. — III. Symbolic version, 289. — IV. Graphic presentation, 293. — V. The case of a tariff, 294. — VI. Analysis in terms of money flows, 301. — VII. Comparison with self-help schemes for the unemployed, 302. — VIII. The reasoning applied to two cases: exchange depreciation, 303; a dollar shortage, 305. — IX. Conclusions, 309.

Journal Article The Possibility of Equilibrium Under Monopolistic Competition Get access Wolfgang F. Stolper Wolfgang F. Stolper Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 54, Issue 3, May 1940, Pages 519–526, https://doi.org/10.2307/1882455 Published: 01 May 1940

IT seems that a really great man in our field is known chiefly by one contribution which may or may not be his main achievement. As Malthus suggests population and Ricardo rent or perhaps the law of comparative advantage, so economic development, innovation, and entrepreneur are the catch words associated with Schumpeter. Such associations may be correct and may even have a function. Yet in the case of every great name in economics they are at best a small part of what constitutes the greatness. At worst they are a caricature. For what matters is not merely the one or the other idea, however great, however significant. What matters is the place of the idea in the vision of the genius, the theory in the literal sense: the view of things as a whole. Schumpeter, in his own writings, repeats this again and again: If a statement has logical flaws, it must be discarded. If it is free of logical mistakes, it receives its meaning only from its context. This viewpoint not only gives the clue to Schumpeter's open-mindedness and tolerance toward other men's ideas, his willingness and ability to see every point of view; it not only explains how he could understand everything and yet cling to his own view; it is essential to the real understanding of his theory.