Baumol’s Theory: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive Entrepreneurship

Why do some societies innovate while others stagnate? William J. Baumol (1990) argued that the answer isn't a lack of entrepreneurs. In fact, he assumed that every society is endowed with a roughly equal share of enterprising individuals.

The difference lies in how those entrepreneurs use their energy. Depending on the "Rules of the Game" (institutions), entrepreneurs will allocate their talent in one of three ways.

The Three Types of Entrepreneurship

Baumol moved beyond the idea that all entrepreneurship is "good." He categorized it by its economic impact:

• Productive: Innovation that creates new wealth (e.g., Steve Jobs creating the iPhone). This "grows the pie."
• Unproductive: Activities that merely redistribute wealth, often called Rent-Seeking (e.g., a corporate lobbyist securing a tax loop-hole, or frivolous lawsuits). This "slices the pie differently" but adds no value.
• Destructive: Activities that destroy wealth (e.g., the Mafia, drug cartels, or warlords). This "shrinks the pie."

The "Rules of the Game"

Baumol argued that the notion of a "spirit of entrepreneurship" (culture) is largely useless for policymakers because it is nearly impossible to measure or change.

Instead, policymakers should focus on the Rules of the Game: the formal and informal institutions that shape incentives. These include:

• Tax laws and regulations.
• The legal system (contract enforcement).
• Social norms and prestige.

If the tax code rewards lobbying more than inventing, entrepreneurs will flock to lobbying. If the legal system rewards theft (warlordism) more than trade, entrepreneurs will become warlords.

Historical Examples of Misaligned Incentives

Baumol used fascinating historical narratives to prove that entrepreneurs are chameleons—they adapt to whatever pays the most status and money.

1. Feudal Europe (Destructive)

In the Middle Ages, the "entrepreneurial" path for an ambitious young man was war. Princes would assemble armies to sack nearby fiefdoms. This required risk-taking and organization (entrepreneurial traits), but it resulted in death and destruction rather than economic growth.

2. Ancient China (Unproductive)

In Imperial China, the path to wealth was the Imperial Examination. Ambitious individuals spent decades mastering calligraphy and Confucian texts to enter the bureaucracy. While intellectually rigorous, it diverted the nation's best minds away from commerce and technology.

3. Ancient Rome (The Slavery Pathway)

Perhaps the most shocking example is how ambition manifested in Rome. The pathway to wealth often involved calculating slavery:

"A clever (and handsome) member of the lower orders might deliberately arrange to be sold into slavery to a wealthy and powerful master. Then, with luck, skill, and drive, he would grow close to his owner... The master then gained cachet, after a suitable period, by granting freedom to the slave, setting him up with a fortune of his own."

Policy Implications

The lesson for modern governments is clear: Don't try to teach "drive"; fix the incentives.

Policymakers must actively shape institutions to reduce the payoff for rent-seeking (e.g., closing tax loopholes) and increase the payoff for innovation (e.g., R&D subsidies). It is a process of constant experimentation to ensure the "Rules of the Game" channel human ambition toward productive ends.

1. Baumol's Theory and Institutional Theory

Baumol’s framework is essentially an applied extension of Institutional Theory. While Institutional Theory broadly posits that "institutions matter" for organizational behavior, Baumol specifies how they matter for entrepreneurs. He argues that the "Rules of the Game" (a core concept of Institutional Theory) do not necessarily dictate the supply of entrepreneurs—which he assumes is constant—but rather their allocation. If a society’s institutions reward rent-seeking over innovation, the entrepreneurial class will not disappear; it will simply shift its energy from productive ventures to unproductive legal and political maneuvering.

2. Baumol's Theory and Creative Destruction Theory

Baumol’s "Productive Entrepreneur" is a direct descendant of the innovator in Schumpeter's Creative Destruction Theory. Both theories champion the entrepreneur as the engine of economic growth who "grows the pie" through innovation. However, Baumol adds a cautionary corollary: while Schumpeter celebrated the inevitability of this destruction, Baumol warns that it is not guaranteed. If the payoff structure is skewed, the same individual capable of Schumpeterian innovation may instead engage in "Destructive Entrepreneurship," using their skills to dismantle wealth rather than create it.

3. Baumol's Theory and Cultural Theory

Baumol explicitly challenges Cultural Theory by arguing that "entrepreneurial spirit" is less relevant than structural incentives. While Cultural Theory suggests that entrepreneurship flourishes in societies with specific values (like high individualism), Baumol contends that human ambition is universal and adaptable. A society does not need to change its culture to spur growth; it merely needs to adjust the economic "Rules of the Game." Thus, for Baumol, policy (institutions) trumps culture as the primary lever for economic development.

4. Baumol's Theory and Alertness Theory

Kirzner's Alertness Theory defines the entrepreneur as someone alert to profit opportunities. Baumol accepts this definition but expands the scope of "profit." In Baumol's view, an entrepreneur can be just as "alert" to a loophole in the tax code (Unproductive) as they are to a gap in the market (Productive). Therefore, "Alertness" is value-neutral; without the proper institutional guardrails described by Baumol, the alert entrepreneur is just as likely to exploit a legal inefficiency for personal gain as they are to solve a consumer problem.

5. Baumol's Theory and Agency Theory

Baumol’s concept of "Unproductive Entrepreneurship" shares a cynical realism with Agency Theory. Both assume that economic actors are self-interested and will exploit systems for personal gain if left unchecked. What Agency Theory calls "Moral Hazard" (an agent acting against the principal's interest), Baumol elevates to a macroeconomic level as "Rent-Seeking." In both cases, the solution is not to hope for better people, but to design better incentive structures that align individual greed with the broader collective good—shareholder value in Agency Theory, and economic growth in Baumol’s.

 

Video: Baumol on Innovation

---

References