It reflects a modern concern to establish a more systematic understanding of the process of creative destruction

Notes

• 
  [1]
  

The invitation to contribute to the Aalborg conference in honour of Richard Nelson and Sid Winter has provided me with a welcome opportunity to return to one of my abiding concerns, the theory of industrial growth and economic transformation.

• 
  [2]
  

Pasinetti (1981), p. 65. It is a point with which Schumpeter would have heartily agreed. See Schumpeter (1939), pp. 43-44.

• 
  [3]
  

The idea of growth as the consequence of transformation is central to evolutionary economic thinking. For two accounts separated by thirty years see Nelson (1968) and Fagerberg and Verspagen (2001).

• 
  [4]
  

The exploration of this point would take us beyond the confines of this paper. The connection between the Hayek story and the evolutionary story is certainly worth telling.

• 
  [5]
  

It might perhaps be argued here that Schumpeter’s circular flow was not a feature of a capitalist economy at all, opening up the possibility that a circular flow is not an attractor unless knowledge ceases to develop, and capitalism ceases to be capitalism. On this, I think the position of the precocious Schumpeter, as reflected in Wesen und Hauptinhalt, differed from the mature image portrayed in Business Cycles. I am grateful to a referee for drawing this point to my attention.

• 
  [6]
  

Ultimately, it emerged again, in different form in the idea of an industrial, technological or product life cycle in the 1960s. Utterbach (1994).

• 
  [7]
  

Andersen (1994) and Saviotti (1996) are two very cogent expositions of an ecology of growth in the tradition explored here. For a recent example of growth curve analysis see Sengupta (2001).

•