Schumpeter, foremost and most influential articulator of the opposite view - that long cycles are caused by, and are an incident of the innovation process. Indeed, Kondratiev's ideas were first bought to attention of English-speaking economist through Schumpeter's treatise on business cycles, in spite of the fact that Schumpeter urged a causality that was sharply in contrast with Kondratiev's. Moreover, it is the Schumpeterian variant of long-cycles hypothesis, stressing the initiating role of innovations, that commands the widest attention today. This is a shame as Kondratiev was fusing important elements that Schumpeter often missed. [32] In Schumpeter's view, technological innovation is at the center of both cyclical instability and economic growth, with the direction of causality moving clearly from fluctuations in innovation to fluctuation in investment and from that to cycles in economics growth, moreover, Schumpeter sees innovations as clustering around certain points in time periods that he refers to as "neighborhoods of equilibrium", when entrepreneurial perception of risk and returns warranted innovative commitments. These clustering, in turn lead to long cycles by generating periods of acceleration in aggregate growth rate. [33]