Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Welcome to the new PerBylund.com. I am still working on tweaking the design and transferring the content. If you miss any of the old site’s content, please check back in again soon.

 

I am a PhD Candidate in applied economics in the Division of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Missouri and a research fellow at the McQuinn Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. My dissertation research is on the theory of the firm, to which I have a distinct emergent and entrepreneurial-specialization approach. The ultimate driving force for integrating production processes in firms in my research is the entrepreneur in the Cantillon-Knight-Schumpeter-Mises tradition, who visualizes ways and brings about previously unseen structures to take advantage of the productive powers of the division of labor and capital. The entrepreneur’s primary means of realizing the imagined capabilities and thereby “beating” the market is the firm. (An outline of this theory was published in the 2011 summer issue of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.)

 

My approach has so far provided very interesting results and offers a promising framework for studying the emergence of factor markets and macro-level market structure – as well as the internal structure and evolution of the firm. Two projects I am currently drafting cover these areas: a theory of the emergence of factor markets and factor pricing, and an attempt to apply my distinct approach on the seemingly never-ending General Motors–Fisher Body integration controversy. They both look very promising at this point.

 

As part of my scholarly work, I have published several articles in refereed journals as well as chapters in books on topics related to my research, and I have presented previous versions of my research papers at many conferences over the last three years (see the Resumé and Papers sections of this web site). I also blog at the McQuinn Center blog entrepreneurship@McQuinn.

  • Brian

    I may be a number, but I am NOT spam.

  • TokyoTom

    Per, I just stumbled acroos your page. Good luck.

    I hope you are distinguishing between the limited liability corporate form and entrepreneurship:

    http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

  • http://www.facebook.com/twitchard Twitchard Marmorstein

    Stumbled across you talking the theory of the firm and super-specialization. Fascinating, fascinating! Thank you very much. And good luck!

  • W Dunn

    Mr Bylund
    I read your post on the Swedish welfare state and thought it was excellent.
    W Dunn
    Rochester Minn

  • Leen Paape

    I guess you will have read the book The Corporation, revealing that in the 17th century the firm as we now know it was legally forbidden in the UK because it might do too much harm to the public interest. My comment was triggered by your post in the Mises newsletter

  • Fred Kurz

    Per “The Economic Theory of the Firm” excerpt Mises Daily 20 Sep. Sigh, you are in a doctoral program. I understand. But, why not leave the firm alone! Why define yet one more organic entity which depends on, its origin, the character of the entrepreneur, the size of his garage, the nature of his “product”, how much of it sells, who in 2 years is the CEO, how many acres the new building occupies, where the building is located, how the “product” has changed, ad-in-fin-i-tum……

  • Murban

    I also read your excerpt in Mises Daily. You raised some questions that are universally unresolved in economics and law, regarding the origin, characteristics, and dynamics of fictitious entities (firms). I’m not an economist, my expertise is in “social structures” (and their dynamics). To answer the questions you raised requires a resolution of the context. The most important question that must be answered first is, “what is the purpose of society?”
    Based on human nature, the universal answer for all civilized societies must be “to promote the well-being of all its members”. Only a cooperative social group qualifies as a rational organizational form for such a social game. Just ask yourself, “why would an sentient being consent to live in a society at all if there were no personal value in doing so?” And if participation weren’t legitimate, then the entire social group would be illegitimate.
    Since fictitious entities are imaginary, they represent a reflection of our own “autonomy”. All fictitious entities derive their autonomy as an “aggregate” from each of the individual human members that align their personal autonomy with the social group.
    An economic system of any kind is strictly a “competitive” form of social group (a free-for-all), that can never form a fictitious entity. A competition possesses characteristics that are distinct from those of a cooperative. Competitions can be legitimate, orderly, and fair (just), but they can never constitute an “entity”. Therefore, an economic system must be subordinate to a superior political entity (society), and never the other way around. Any attempt at reversing the relationship will result in a total breakdown of a civilized society. Most likely resulting in some form of fascism.
    I’ve done a great deal of unpublished work on this topic, and if you’re interested discussing it in more detail feed free to contact me at “murban att nezo dot org”.

  • http://www.PerBylund.com Per Bylund

    Fred, I’m not sure I understand your comment. But I am less unsure that you don’t understand what it is I am doing…