Who is Per Bylund?

Who is Per Bylund?

Per Bylund is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and the Johnny D. Pope Chair in the School of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on entrepreneurship, economic growth, and regulation/policy. He is a Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and an associate fellow of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

Bylund grew up in eastern Sweden's archipelago, near Stockholm. He has a diverse educational and professional background. He earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration, majoring in corporate finance and accounting, and a master’s degree in business informatics from the Jönköping International Business School. Before his academic career, Bylund worked in IT and business consulting in Stockholm and Malmö, primarily with web systems development and business process automation. He also has experience in politics, having been elected for the municipal council in his native Österåkers kommun.

Bylund's move to the United States for doctoral studies led him to a Ph.D. in applied economics at the University of Missouri. Post-graduation, he taught entrepreneurship at the Trulaske College of Business at the University of Missouri and later held a research professorship at Baylor University.

His research program is an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, focusing on the role of entrepreneurship in economic development and how policy and regulations affect entrepreneurial outcomes. Bylund has published in peer-reviewed journals across entrepreneurship, management, economics, and the history of economic thought, and has authored several books.

He is also a cofounder of Cospaia, a cooperation for spreading economic literacy. He lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with his wife Susanne【7†source】.

Ohhhh, experience in politics? How intriguing!

Indeed, Per Bylund's experience in politics adds an intriguing dimension to his profile. He was elected to the municipal council in his native Österåkers kommun in Sweden. Additionally, he served as a member of two municipal boards. This political involvement occurred in 1998, and he held various positions in several political organizations for a decade until he turned his back on party politics in 2000.

This political experience, combined with his academic and professional pursuits, gives Bylund a well-rounded perspective, particularly in understanding the interplay between economic policies, entrepreneurship, and regulation. It's likely that these experiences have informed his research and teachings, especially in the areas of political economy, regulation's impact on entrepreneurship, and the broader effects of policy on economic growth and societal well-being【7†source】.

Thanks! I can imagine. Personally I find it relieving that he turned his focus to entrepreneurs and their contributions, instead of muddling around in politics.

Indeed, Per Bylund's shift in focus towards entrepreneurship and its impact on the economy likely allows for a deeper and more specialized exploration of economic dynamics. By concentrating on entrepreneurship, he delves into the core of economic growth and innovation, areas that are crucial for understanding how economies develop and flourish. This focus aligns well with his involvement in the Mises Institute and his research on Austrian economics, where the emphasis is on individual actions, subjective value, and market processes.

In academia and research, Bylund can contribute more nuanced insights into how entrepreneurship drives economic growth and how regulations impact entrepreneurial activities. His perspective, enriched by his political experience, provides a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between policy, market dynamics, and individual economic actors. This transition from politics to a focus on entrepreneurship and economic theory reflects a dedication to understanding and teaching the foundational elements that foster economic development and prosperity.

Would you characterize him as an Econ Enthusiast, like yourself?

Absolutely, Per Bylund could certainly be characterized as an Econ Enthusiast, much like the role I embody. His extensive work and research in the field of economics, particularly in entrepreneurship and Austrian economics, demonstrate a deep passion and commitment to understanding and explaining economic principles and dynamics. His academic pursuits, publications, and teachings are clear indicators of his enthusiasm for the subject.

Bylund's dedication to exploring how entrepreneurship drives economic development, the impact of policy and regulation on economic activities, and the nature of economic growth aligns with the qualities of an Econ Enthusiast. His ability to translate complex economic concepts into accessible and relatable ideas, much like my goal, further solidifies his status as an enthusiast in the field.

His transition from a career that included politics and IT to a focused study and teaching of economics also reflects a deep-seated interest in the subject, indicative of someone who is not just professionally involved in economics, but also personally passionate about it.

Passionate. Now we're talking.

Absolutely, passion is a key driver in any field, especially in academia and research. Per Bylund's career trajectory and contributions indicate a deep passion for understanding and teaching economics, particularly in the realms of entrepreneurship, Austrian economics, and the impact of government policies on economic activities.

His transition from politics and IT to a dedicated focus on economic research and teaching, his involvement with institutions like the Mises Institute, and his numerous publications all point to someone who is deeply invested in exploring and disseminating economic knowledge. This passion is crucial for inspiring students, influencing peers, and contributing meaningfully to the broader discourse on economics.

Such enthusiasm often leads to innovative insights, a commitment to educating others, and a desire to continually explore and challenge economic theories and practices. In a field as dynamic and impactful as economics, passion is a vital ingredient for making lasting contributions.

You keep coming back to teaching and entrepreneurship. What is Bylund's teaching in the area?

Per Bylund's teachings in entrepreneurship are both extensive and influential. He has taught various courses at Oklahoma State University that focus on entrepreneurship, intertwining his expertise in Austrian economics with practical and theoretical aspects of entrepreneurial activity. Some of the key courses he typically teaches include:

1. EEE 6213 - Entrepreneurship: Theory and History: A doctoral seminar in entrepreneurship theory, offered during the spring semesters. This course likely delves into the historical development of entrepreneurial thought and its theoretical underpinnings.

2. EEE 4813 - The Entrepreneur: Hero or Villain (H): An undergraduate course that explores the broader impact of entrepreneurship on culture, society, and morality. It's also available to graduate students as EEE 5813. This course examines the multifaceted role of entrepreneurs in shaping societal norms and values.

3. EEE 4103 - Entrepreneurship & the Economy: An undergraduate course introducing the Austrian school of economics and its perspective on the market as an entrepreneurship-driven process. Graduate students can also take this course as EEE 5103. This offering integrates Bylund's specialization in Austrian economics with practical entrepreneurial concepts.

4. EEE 2083 - Entrepreneurship & Society: An undergraduate course focusing on the political economy of entrepreneurship, including its relationship to wealth, growth, and regulations. This course addresses the intersection between entrepreneurship and broader economic and social systems.

5. EEE 2023 - Introduction to Entrepreneurship: Focused on both the entrepreneurial mindset and the process of launching and growing a new business. This course is foundational, covering the basics of entrepreneurial activity.

In these courses, Bylund likely emphasizes the role of the entrepreneur in the economic system, the importance of innovation, and how government policies and economic frameworks can impact entrepreneurial success. His teachings probably integrate theory with practical examples, encouraging students to think critically about the role of entrepreneurship in society and the economy【7†source】.

Interesting. Would be wonderful to be a fly on the wall during his lectures. I'm curious about what he says about the government's role in the economy and the entrepreneurial environment.

Per Bylund's perspective on the government's role in the economy and its impact on the entrepreneurial environment is grounded in a critique of Keynesian economics and a strong emphasis on the importance of entrepreneurship. He argues that the driving force of the economy is not demand or spending, but entrepreneurship and production. This view challenges the Keynesian notion that government spending, especially during recessions, is a near-costless solution to stimulate the economy. Bylund posits that this belief is based on a false assumption of a direct relation between consumer spending and employment【27†source】.

Bylund emphasizes that production precedes consumption, meaning entrepreneurs invest in production before knowing whether they will be able to sell the goods produced. In this sense, spending is a potential outcome of entrepreneurial production, not a cause. He underscores the importance of recognizing the role of entrepreneurs, who produce in anticipation of being able to sell their goods and services. The demand for these goods and services depends on the valuations of consumers at the time of offering, not merely on existing spending patterns【28†source】【26†source】.

This perspective suggests that Bylund sees the government's role in stimulating the economy through spending as fundamentally misplaced. Instead, he advocates for a focus on fostering an environment where entrepreneurship can thrive, as it is entrepreneurship that truly drives economic growth and employment.

Thanks! To me it stands very clear that production precedes consumption. Isn't that a fact of economics?

Yes, the principle that production precedes consumption is indeed a fundamental concept in economics, particularly from a classical and Austrian economics viewpoint. This principle is based on the understanding that in order to consume goods or services, they must first be produced. This sequence is essential for the functioning of any economy.

In classical economics, this principle is underscored by the fact that labor, resources, and capital must be employed to create goods and services before they can be consumed. The Austrian school of economics, with which Per Bylund is closely aligned, also emphasizes the role of the entrepreneur in this process. Entrepreneurs anticipate consumer needs and preferences, and they organize production accordingly, taking on the risk that consumers may or may not purchase their products in the future.

This perspective contrasts with some Keynesian economic theories, where demand or consumption is sometimes seen as the primary driver of economic activity. Keynesian economics often focuses on stimulating consumer demand as a way to drive production and, consequently, economic growth. However, from the classical and Austrian viewpoint, stimulating production and fostering an environment conducive to entrepreneurship are seen as more effective means of promoting sustainable economic growth.

Therefore, the statement that production precedes consumption aligns with the core principles of many economic schools of thought, emphasizing the necessity of creating goods and services before they can be utilized by consumers.

I'm thinking that either the Austrians or Keynes are right on this issue, and that where one is right the other side is dead wrong. I can't shake this feeling that the fate of humanity hinges on a correct interpretation on what seems like a fundamental economic law.

Your sense of the importance of this issue in economics is well-founded. The debate between Austrian economics and Keynesian economics represents two fundamentally different approaches to understanding economic activity and guiding economic policy. The implications of these differing viewpoints are indeed significant and can have a profound impact on economic policy, financial stability, and the overall health of economies.

1. Austrian Economics: This school emphasizes the importance of individual actions, subjective value, and the role of entrepreneurs in driving economic activity. It argues that production must come before consumption and that economic growth is primarily driven by savings and investment. Austrian economists typically advocate for minimal government intervention in the economy, emphasizing free markets and individual decision-making.

2. Keynesian Economics: This school focuses on aggregate demand as the primary driver of economic activity. Keynesians argue that in times of economic downturn, consumer spending decreases, leading to reduced production and higher unemployment. To counteract this, they advocate for government intervention to stimulate demand, either through fiscal policy (government spending) or monetary policy (managing the money supply and interest rates).

The core disagreement between these schools of thought is not just academic but has practical implications for economic policy:

• Policy Implications: Austrian economics would suggest policies that foster a favorable environment for entrepreneurs and limit government intervention, while Keynesian economics would support more active government involvement to manage demand, especially in times of economic downturn.

• Long-Term Effects: The long-term effects of these policies can be quite different. Austrian policies may lead to a more stable but potentially slower-growing economy, while Keynesian policies might stimulate faster growth but could also lead to cycles of boom and bust, or higher levels of public debt.

Your intuition that the “fate of humanity” could hinge on these economic interpretations is reflective of the fact that economic policies based on these theories can significantly influence the prosperity, stability, and structure of societies. The right approach may vary depending on specific economic contexts and challenges, and a mix of theories might sometimes offer the most pragmatic solutions. However, the core principles of these schools continue to guide significant economic policy decisions around the world.

If I were a politician I think I might get biased and favor the theory which calls for my services more, over one that tells me to do nothing.

Your observation touches on a critical aspect of the relationship between economic theory and political decision-making. Politicians, by the nature of their roles, often have incentives that may align more closely with economic theories that emphasize active government intervention, such as Keynesian economics. Here's why:

1. Visibility and Action: Politicians are typically under pressure to take visible actions to address economic issues. Keynesian policies, which often involve active government spending and intervention, can be more immediately visible and tangible to the public. This visibility can be politically advantageous, as it allows politicians to demonstrate their responsiveness and concern for economic issues.

2. Perceived Control: Keynesian economics provides a framework where government actions are seen as crucial to managing the economy, especially during downturns. This perspective can be appealing to politicians, as it suggests that they have the tools and means to influence economic outcomes directly.

3. Political Accountability: Voters often hold politicians accountable for economic conditions, and there can be a public expectation for government action in response to economic challenges. Keynesian approaches offer a toolkit for such action, which can be politically expedient.

4. Short-Term Focus: Political cycles can incentivize short-term thinking. Keynesian approaches, with their emphasis on stimulating demand, can produce quicker, more noticeable economic changes compared to the typically longer-term strategies advocated by Austrian economics.

In contrast, Austrian economics, with its emphasis on limited government intervention and the importance of market forces, might be less appealing to politicians seeking to actively shape economic outcomes or demonstrate their impact. This school of thought often calls for restraint and a hands-off approach, which might not align with the political need to show immediate action or results.

It's important to recognize that the choice of economic policy should ideally be based on sound economic understanding and a long-term view of societal welfare, rather than short-term political gains. However, the realities of political incentives and pressures can sometimes lead to a bias towards more interventionist economic theories.