Editing Creative destruction (section)

=== Others ===
In 1992, the idea of creative destruction was put into formal mathematical terms by [[Philippe Aghion]] and [[Peter Howitt (economist)|Peter Howitt]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Aghion |first1=Philippe |last2=Howitt |first2= Peter |title=A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction |journal=Econometrica |year=1992 |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=323–51 |jstor=2951599 |doi=10.2307/2951599 |hdl=1721.1/63839 |citeseerx=10.1.1.401.6084 }}</ref> giving an alternative model of [[Endogenous growth theory|endogenous growth]] compared to [[Paul Romer]]'s expanding varieties model.

In 1995, [[Harvard Business School]] authors [[Richard L. Nolan]] and David C. Croson released a book advocating downsizing to free up slack resources, which could then be reinvested to create [[competitive advantage]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Nolan |first1=Richard L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=olokqPJi73AC |title=Creative Destruction: A Six-stage Process for Transforming the Organization |last2=Croson |first2=David C. |date=1995 |publisher=Harvard Business School Press |isbn=978-0-87584-498-5 |language=en}}</ref>

More recently, the idea of "creative destruction" was utilized by Max Page in his 1999 book, ''The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900–1940.''  The book traces [[Manhattan]]'s constant reinvention, often at the expense of preserving a concrete past. Describing this process as "creative destruction," Page describes the complex historical circumstances, economics, social conditions and personalities that have produced crucial changes in Manhattan's cityscape.<ref>{{cite book|last=Page|first=Max|title=The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, 1900–1940|year=1999|publisher=The University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-226-64468-4}}</ref>

In addition to Max Page, others have used the term "creative destruction" to describe the process of urban renewal and modernization. T.C. Chang and Shirlena Huang referenced "creative destruction" in their paper ''Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative Destruction at the [[Singapore River]].'' The authors explored the efforts to redevelop a waterfront area that reflected a vibrant new culture while paying sufficient homage to the history of the region.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chang|first1=T.C.|first2=Shirlena|last2=Huang|title=Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative destruction at the Singapore River|journal=Asia Pacific Viewpoint|date=December 2005|volume=46|issue=3|pages=267–80|doi=10.1111/j.1467-8373.2005.00285.x}}</ref>  Rosemary Wakeman chronicled the evolution of an area in central Paris, France known as [[Les Halles]]. Les Halles housed a vibrant marketplace starting in the twelfth century. Ultimately, in 1971, the markets were relocated and the pavilions torn down. In their place, now stand a hub for trains, subways and buses. Les Halles is also the site of the largest shopping mall in France and the controversial Centre Georges Pompidou.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wakeman|first=Rosemary|title=Fascinating Les Halles|journal=French Politics, Culture & Society|date=Summer 2007|volume=25|issue=2|pages=46–72|doi=10.3167/fpcs.2007.250205}}</ref>

The term "creative destruction" has been applied to the arts. Alan Ackerman and Martin Puncher (2006) edited a collection of essays under the title ''Against Theater: Creative destruction on the modernist stage.'' They detail the changes and the causal motivations experienced in [[theater]] as a result of the modernization of both the production of performances and the underlying economics. They speak of how theater has reinvented itself in the face of [[anti-theatricality]], straining the boundaries of the traditional to include more physical productions, which might be considered avant-garde staging techniques.<ref>{{cite book|last=Ackerman|first=Alan|title=Against Theater|url=https://archive.org/details/againsttheatrecr00puch|url-access=limited|year=2006|publisher=Palgrave MacMillan|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4039-4491-7|pages=[https://archive.org/details/againsttheatrecr00puch/page/n13 1]–17}}</ref>

Additionally within art, Tyler Cowen's book ''Creative Destruction'' describes how art styles change as artists are simply exposed to outside ideas and styles, even if they do not intend to incorporate those influences into their art.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Creative Destruction|last=Cowen|first=Tyler|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2002|isbn=0-691-09016-5}}</ref>  Traditional styles may give way to new styles, and thus creative destruction allows for more diversified art, especially when cultures share their art with each other.

In his 1999 book, ''Still the New World, American Literature in a Culture of Creative Destruction'', [[Philip Fisher (author)|Philip Fisher]] analyzes the themes of creative destruction at play in literary works of the twentieth century, including the works of such authors as [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], [[Walt Whitman]], [[Herman Melville]], [[Mark Twain]], and [[Henry James]], among others. Fisher argues that creative destruction exists within literary forms just as it does within the changing of technology.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Still the New World: American Literature in a Culture of Creative Destruction|last=Fisher|first=Philip|publisher=Harvard University Press, Second Edition|year=1999|isbn=978-0674004092}}</ref>

[[Neoconservative]] author [[Michael Ledeen]] argued in his 2002 book ''The War Against the Terror Masters'' that America is a revolutionary nation, undoing traditional societies: "Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law." His characterization of creative destruction as a model for social development has met with fierce opposition from [[paleoconservative]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |author-link=John Laughland |first=John |last=Laughland |url=http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/jun/30/00013/ |title=Flirting with Fascism. Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right |journal=American Conservative |date=June 30, 2003 |access-date=August 13, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110828191822/http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/jun/30/00013/ |archive-date=August 28, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Creative destruction has also been linked to sustainable development. The connection was explicitly mentioned for the first time by Stuart L. Hart and Mark B. Milstein in their 1999 article ''Global Sustainability and the Creative Destruction of Industries'',<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Stuart |last1=Hart |first2=Mark |last2=Milstein |title=Global Sustainability and the Creative Destruction of Industries |journal=Sloan Management Review |volume=41 |issue=1 |year=1999 |pages=23–33 }}</ref> in which he argues new profit opportunities lie in a round of creative destruction driven by global sustainability. (They would strengthen this argument later in their 2003 article ''Creating Sustainable Value''<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Stuart L. |last1=Hart |first2=Mark B. |last2=Milstein |s2cid=14480187 |title=Creating Sustainable Value |journal=Academy of Management Executive |volume=17 |issue=2 |year=2003 |pages=56–67 |doi=10.5465/AME.2003.10025194 }}</ref> and, in 2005, with ''Innovation, Creative Destruction and Sustainability''.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Stuart L. |last=Hart |title=Innovation, Creative Destruction and Sustainability |journal=Research Technology Management |volume=48 |issue=5 |year=2005 |pages=21–27 |doi=10.1080/08956308.2005.11657334|s2cid=153047074 }}</ref>) Andrea L. Larson agreed with this vision a year later in ''Sustainable Innovation Through an Entrepreneurship Lens'',<ref>{{cite journal |first=Andrea L. |last=Larson |title=Sustainable Innovation Through an Entrepreneurship Lens |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=9 |year=2000 |pages=304–17 |doi=10.1002/1099-0836(200009/10)9:5<304::AID-BSE255>3.0.CO;2-O |issue=5 }}</ref> stating entrepreneurs should be open to the opportunities for disruptive improvement based on sustainability. In 2005, James Hartshorn (et al.) emphasized the opportunities for sustainable, disruptive improvement in the construction industry in his article ''Creative Destruction: Building Toward Sustainability''.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=James |last1=Hartshorn |first2=Michael |last2=Maher |first3=Jack |last3=Crooks |first4=Richard |last4=Stahl |first5=Zoë |last5=Bond |title=Creative Destruction: Building Toward Sustainability |journal=Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering |volume=32 |issue=1 |year=2005 |pages=170–80 |doi=10.1139/l04-119 |bibcode=2005CaJCE..32..170H }}</ref>

Some economists argue that the destructive component of creative destruction has become more powerful than it was in the past. They claim that the creative component does not add as much to growth as in earlier generations, and innovation has become more rent-seeking than value-creating.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Komlos |first1=John |title=Has Creative Destruction become more Destructive? |journal=The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy |date=1 October 2016 |volume=16 |issue=4 |doi=10.1515/bejeap-2016-0179 |s2cid=11714688 |url=https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43465/1/Komlos_Has_Creative_Destruction_become_more_Destructive.pdf }}</ref>