Apropos of the discussion about Schumpeter's theory of economic development with its central focus on innovation, I would like to mention one anomaly that is striking in comparing him and Marx as metatheorists. Marx has many detailed, realistic, and convincing examples of the factory system and the industrial process in his discussion of capitalist mode of production. For all his emphasis on innovations and technological change, it is hard to find many examples in Schumpeter, besides the now famous cliche about the horse carriage and the automobile. Still, I would like to suggest that Schumpeter was a far more complex and accomplished economist than the disapproval of his politics, with which I heartily concur, warrants. Even Solow concedes in couple of places in his review of the McCraw biography that basically Schumpeter was right on the whole about important issues: For instance: "Schumpeter had a rise-and-fall mechanism in mind. The monopoly profits collected by a successful entrepreneurial firm attract imitators and competitors, many of which are financed by fresh credit. This activity eventually erodes the initial profits; and then the time is ripe for another innovation, if one comes along. There is obvious truth to this story, but it is far from being a theory of economy-wide fluctuations." And, "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is a well-done polemic from a supremely sophisticated Central European. I don't know if it can be classified as social science, but I do think that most of it is true." I was left wondering if Solow was objecting to Schumpeter's method more than to his explanation of the capitalist economy. Sumitra Shah