Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology

Several social scientists, including ‘evolutionary economists’, have expressed scepticism of ‘biological analogies’ and rejected the application of ‘Darwinism’ to socio-economic evolution. Among this group, some have argued that self-organisation is an alternative to biological analogies or Darwinism. Others have seen ‘artificial selection’ as an alternative to natural selection in the socio-economic sphere. Another objection is that Darwinism excludes human intentionality. It is shown that all these objections to ‘biological analogies’ and ‘Darwinism’ are ungrounded. Furthermore, Darwinism includes a broad theoretical framework for the analysis of the evolution of all open, complex systems, including socio-economic systems. Finally and crucially, Darwinism also involves a basic philosophical commitment to detailed, cumulative, causal explanations. For these reasons, Darwinism is fully relevant for economics and an adequate evolutionary economics must be Darwinian, at least in these fundamental senses. However, this does not undermine the need for auxiliary theories and explanations in the economic domain.     

The process and a simple logic of ‘meso’. Emergence and the co-evolution of institutions and group size

‘Summing-up’ aggregation of micro decisions contrasts with structural emergence in complex systems and evolutionary processes. This paper deals with institutional emergence in the ‘evolution of cooperation’ framework and focuses on its size dimension. It is argued that some ‘meso’ (rather than ‘macro’) level is the proper level of cultural emergence and reproduction. Also Schumpeterian economists have discussed institutions as ‘meso’ phenomena recently, and Schelling, Axelrod, Arthur, Lindgren, and others have dealt with ‘critical masses’ of coordinated agents and emergent segregations. However, emergent group size has rarely been explicitly explored so far. In an evolutionary and game-theoretic frame, ‘meso’ is explained in terms of a sustainably cooperating group smaller than the whole population. Mechanisms such as some monitoring, memory, reputation, and active partner selection loosen the total connectivity of the static and deterministic ‘single-shot’ logic and thus allow for emergent ‘meso’ platforms, while expectations ‘to meet again’ remain sufficiently high. Applications of ‘meso-nomia’ include the deep structure of ‘general trust’ and macro-performance in ‘smaller’ and ‘well networked’ countries which helps to explain persistent ‘varieties of capitalism’.     

The origins of meso economics

The paper starts from Schumpeter’s proposition that entrepreneurs carry out innovations (the micro level), that swarms of followers imitate them (meso) and that, as a consequence, ‘creative destruction’ leads to economic development ‘from within’ (macro). It is argued that Schumpeter’s approach can be developed into a new—more general—micro-meso-macro framework in economics. Center stage is meso. Its essential characteristic is bimodality, meaning that one idea (the generic rule) can be physically actualized by many agents (a population). Ideas can relate to others, and, in this way, meso constitutes a structure component of a ‘deep’ invisible macro structure. Equally, the rule actualization process unfolds over time—modelled in the paper as a meso trajectory with three phases of rule origination, selective adoption and retention—and here meso represents a process component of a visible ‘surface’ structure. The macro measure with a view to the appropriateness of meso components is generic correspondence. At the level of ideas, its measure is order; at that of actual relative adoption frequencies, it is generic equilibrium. Economic development occurs at the deep level as transition from one generic rule to another, inducing a change of order, and, at the surface level, as the new rule is adopted, destroying an old equilibrium and establishing a new one.     

The Sensory Order and other Adaptive Classifying Systems

Synopsis Hayek’s cognitive theory, which seeks to describe the operation of a particular order, in fact provides a paradigmatic account of knowledge-generating orders in general. We claim that this paradigm provides a fertile conceptual framework for exploring a variety of problems in economics and social theory. In particular, we shall show that Hayek’s conception of the ‘map’ and the ‘model’, which he uses to explain the operation of the complex adaptive classifying system called ‘mind’, are promising analytical devices with applications extending to social structures of various kinds and complexity. We use Hayek’s notion of the map and model to analyze how different social structures – regarded as classifying systems – work in terms of their input, processing, and output capabilities. The adaptive characteristics of such systems, via communicative routines, multi-level classification, and feedback, form central motifs for our discussion of markets, science, and other social structures. We show that by analyzing the knowledge-generating characteristics of such structures we are also able to gain insights about the circumstances affecting their adaptive properties.     

The Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism Needs Better Categories: Clearing up the Confusions that Result from Blurring Analytic and Lay Concepts

Synopsis It has been difficult to make progress in the study of ethnicity and nationalism because of the multiple confusions of analytic and lay terms, and the sheer lack of terminological standardization (often even within the same article). This makes a conceptual cleaning-up unavoidable, and it is especially salutary to attempt it now that more economists are becoming interested in the effects of identity on behavior, so that they may begin with the best conceptual tools possible. My approach to these questions has been informed by anthropological and evolutionary-psychological questions. I will focus primarily on the terms ‘ethnic group’, ‘nation’, and ‘nationalism’, and I will make the following points: (1) so-called ‘ethnic groups’ are collections of people with a common cultural identity, plus an ideology of membership by descent and normative endogamy; (2) the ‘group’ in ‘ethnic group’ is a misleading misnomer—these are not ‘groups’ but categories, so I propose to call them ‘ethnies’; (3) ‘nationalism’ mostly refers to the recent ideology that ethnies—cultural communities with a self-conscious ideology of self-sufficient reproduction—be made politically sovereign; (4) it is very confusing to use ‘nationalism’ also to stand for ‘loyalty to a multi-ethnic state’ because this is the exact opposite; (5) a ‘nation’ truly exists only in a politician’s imagination, so analysts should not pretend that establishing whether something ‘really’ is or is not ‘a nation’ matters; (6) a big analytic cost is paid every time an ‘ethnie’ is called a ‘nation’ because this mobilizes the intuition that nationalism is indispensable to ethnic organization (not true), which thereby confuses the very historical process—namely, the recent historical emergence of nationalism—that must be explained; (7) another analytical cost is paid when scholars pretend that ethnicity is a form of kinship—it is not.     

From simplistic to complex systems in economics

The applicability of complex systems theory in economics isevaluated and compared with standard approaches to economictheorising based upon constrained optimisation. A complex systemis defined in the economic context and differentiated from complexsystems in physio-chemical and biological settings. It is explainedwhy it is necessary to approach economic analysis from a network,rather than a production and utility function perspective, whenwe are dealing with complex systems. It is argued that muchof heterodox thought, particularly in neo-Schumpeterian andneo-Austrian evolutionary economics, can be placed within acomplex systems perspective upon the economy. The challengeis to replace prevailing ‘simplistic’ theories,based in constrained optimisation, with ‘simple’theories, derived from network representations in which valueis created through the establishment of new connections betweenelements.     

Towards a Disequilibrium Theory of Endogenous Economic Growth

This paper discusses the need for a new approach to economic growth theory. The standard theory of growth-in-equilibrium driven by exogenous, uncaused, productivity gains has an implication that is both unjustified and perverse from a policy perspective: that government intervention of any kind can only introduce constraints and reduce option space, thus decreasing potential growth. It is argued that growth theory should (1) acknowledge the importance of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, as a driver of past and present economic growth, (2) incorporate an explicit recognition that growth is a consequence of technological innovation, especially radical innovation, that often responds to natural resource scarcities or other societal needs and (3) explicitly reflect the fact that the important (i.e. scarce) factors of production in economics can and do change over time, i.e. from a rural ‘cowboy’ economy of the past to an urbanized ‘spaceship’ economy of the future. In short, it should reflect the fact that ‘necessity is the mother of invention’. The first and third of these modifications have been proposed before, but not in combination. The third seems to be new.     

Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: modeling agglomeration,externalities and trade

A welfare framework for the analysis of the spatial dimensions of sustainability is developed. It covers agglomeration effects, interregional trade, negative environmental externalities, and various land use categories. The model is used to compare rankings of spatial configurations according to evaluations based on social welfare and ecological footprint indicators. Five spatial configurations are considered for this purpose. The exercise is operationalized with the help of a two-region model of the economy, that is, in line with the ‘new economic geography.’ By generating a number of numerical ‘counter-examples,’ it is shown that the footprint method is inconsistent with an approach aimed at maximum social welfare. Unless environmental externalities are such a large problem that they overwhelm all other components of economic well-being, a ‘spatial welfare economic’ approach delivers totally different rankings of alternative land use configurations than the ecological footprint.      

Exchange rate economics is always and everywhere controversial

This article reviews the major developments in the recent literature on exchange rate economics. It is argued that the link between the exchange rate and economic fundamentals is breaking new ground. Evidence indicates that alternative analytical frameworks (such as the new open-economy macroeconomics) and exchange rate arrangements (such as the euro) have their theoretical and analytical elegance, but are proving empirically very difficult to implement. The role of methodological advances and alternative fundamental instruments (such as world commodity prices) is also highlighted.     

Evolvability and progress in evolutionary economics

This paper develops an account of evolutionary progress for use in the field of evolutionary economics. Previous work is surveyed and a new account set out, based on the idea of evolvability as it has been used recently in evolutionary developmental biology. The biological underpinnings of this idea are explained using examples of a series of phenomena that influence the evolvability of biological systems. It is further argued that biological and economic selection pressures and developmental processes are sufficiently similar to make this biological concept useful in economics. The new account is defended against a number of common objections to the notion of progress in evolving systems, including the claim that all stipulated measures of evolutionary progress are essentially arbitrary and the idea that economic evolutionary progress might not accord with the preferences of economic actors. It is argued that progress, understood as an increase in evolvability over time, is both philosophically well-justified and provides useful predictive and explanatory resources to those seeking to understand and manipulate evolving economic systems.     

The evolution of IT innovations in Swedish organizations: a Darwinian critique of ‘Lamarckian’ institutional economics

Fundamental correspondence and analogies between the evolution of technological and biological innovations call for an ‘innovation Darwinian’, ‘universal Darwinian’ or ‘memetic’ approach to understanding technology innovation. Neo-institutional, in fact pseudo-Lamarckian evolutionary economic theory, represented by North, Nelson and Winter, Freeman and others, is criticized. Pseudo-Lamarckian (“by volition”) evolution is explained and analyzed on Darwinian grounds (as intentional and artificial selection), as is Schumpeter’s definitions of creative and imitative innovation. Data from a web survey among Swedish public and private organizations in 1999 are studied. Data show that Darwinian co-evolutionary interaction between producers and users or clients provide essential conditions and stronger influence on creative IT innovations than both ‘Lamarckian’ strategies and competition.

How useful is generalized Darwinism as a framework to study competition and industrial evolution?

The role of Darwinist concepts in evolutionary economics has long been a contentious issue. The controversy has recently been rekindled by the proposal of a “Universal” or “generalized” Darwinism, which holds that the ontology of all evolutionary systems accords to the Darwinist scheme of variation, selection and inheritance. This paper focuses on the application of the generalized Darwinist framework to the analysis of markets and industries. It argues that selection and inheritance concepts narrowly construed after the biological example are of limited usefulness. As an alternative to the ‘top–down’ approach of Universal Darwinism, the development of ‘bottom–up’ theories is advocated.

Resilience in the Dynamics of Economy-Environment Systems

The ecological concept of resilience has begun to inform analysis of change in economy-environment systems. The linkages between resilience and the stability of dynamical systems are discussed, along with its role in understanding of the evolution of such systems. Particular linkages discussed include those between resilience, biodiversity and the sustainability of alternative states. Recent developments in modelling the resilience of joint economy-environment systems suggest the advantages of analysing change in the system as a Markov process, the transition probabilities between states offering a natural measure of the resilience of the system in such states. It is argued that this ‘emergent property’ of the collaboration between ecology and economics has far-reaching implications for the way we think about, model and manage the environmental sustainability of economic development.     

Prior Commitment and Uncertainty in Complex Economic Systems: Reinstating History in the Core of Economic Analysis

Conventional ‘neoclassical’ economics is very useful in understanding how prices are determined but less so as a general basis for understanding the economic behaviour we observe. What is not taken into account is that economic systems are dissipative structures that are complex, but incompletely connected, networks of rules. It is explained why a degree of prior commitment in decision‐making is inevitable in complex economic systems and the implications of this are examined. It is argued that economic analysis must begin with the reality that choices are made in relation to pre‐existing commitments, both with regard to economic structures built in the past and to prevailing systems of belief, when deciding what to do in a future characterised by uncertainty. It is explained how conventional economic incentives can be dealt with in such a complex historical context building upon the neoclassical perspective of Alfred Marshall over a century ago. It is argued that econometric modelling remains viable and useful in understanding behaviour in complex economic systems. It is shown how we can design and interpret time series econometric modelling from a complex systems perspective.     

An evolutionary perspective on health innovation systems

This paper elaborates on the general properties of medical innovation processes. It begins with a critical review of different perspectives and methods of investigation used in various streams of research that have previously analysed technical change in the health sector. After profiling and discussing their characteristics, the paper proposes an evolutionary approach to change in medicine constructed around the notion of a ‘Health Innovation System’. Health innovation, it is argued, consists of complex bundles of new medical technologies and clinical services emerging from a highly distributed competence base. Health Innovation Systems are driven by the combination of (1) institutionally-bound interactions among agents (‘gateways’ of innovation) and (2) history-dependent trajectories of change (‘pathways’ of innovation) whose developments emerge from and feed back into the structure of the system through organised transfers of knowledge between research and clinical practice. After drawing examples from recent empirical work on clinical research in specific disease areas, the paper concludes by identifying implications for further research.

Alternative evolutionary theories: A historical survey

Our overview has the objective of making our study relevant to bioeconomists. The need for the ‘alternatives’ to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution in social-economic studies was substantiated, for example, by Colombatto (Journal of Bioeconomics, 5, 1–25, 2003), who maintains that the natural-selection theory is ‘ill suited’ to describing evolutionary processes in economics. He proposed an alternative ‘non-Darwinian’ approach by equating the ‘non-Darwinian’ approach with a definite version of neo-Lamarckism. Yet, as we will show, there is a palette of alternative approaches within and beyond the neo-Lamarckism. We hope to give bioeconomists more choice in their theoretical modeling and constructing of analogies between biology and economics. It will also be shown that in the light of suggested definitions the concept of ‘universal Darwinism’ recently discussed in bioeconomics makes little sense as a generalizing category. In addition, in the concluding part of the paper we demonstrate that the majority of alternative approaches are far from being pigeonholed as archaic and once and for all wiped off the theoretical landscape. On the contrary, in recent years one can observe some revival of interest in the theoretical ‘heresies’.      

Routines, genes and program-based behavior

It is argued that the ‘routines as genes’ and the ‘routines as skills’ analogies are misleading in several respects. Neither genes, nor skills, nor routines program behavior, if this is taken to involve, first, that they do so in a way that excludes conscious, deliberate choice and, second, that they determine behavior. On a proper understanding of ‘gene’, ‘skill’ and ‘routine’, conscious, deliberate choice is not ruled out when genes, skills or routines are operating. Once we shift from analogy to ontology, genes and skills appear as basic constituents of routines. Routines cannot exist unless specific genes and skills are in place in the individuals involved in the operation of the routines. Both genes and skills can be said to act unconsciously as ‘If ..., then ...’ programs. Even complete knowledge of genes and skills of the individuals involved would fall far short of predicting individual and firm behavior, however. What would still be missing, it is argued, is knowledge about organization, the specific ways in which genes, skills and individuals are connected with one another, and knowledge of context-dependence, what environmental stimuli activate specific chains of genes, skills and individuals.

Wealth accumulation and economic progress

In an evolutionary dynamic economic theory the accumulation of durable goods (i.e., wealth) is a key feature. Here we show that the wealth of individual economic agents can be measured by the progress function (PF). PF is a function of goods and money under straightforward assumptions, notably the ‘no-loss’ rule for transactions. We derive explicit formulae for wealth from the PF. We also show how the compatibility of the PF and the neoclassical economics deriving the conventional utility functions from the PF.     

Do we really care about Biodiversity?

This paper addresses from an economic perspective the issue of global biodiversity conservation. It challenges the perception that the world really cares a great deal about biodiversity and is prepared to pay the full cost of maintaining this stock of natural capital. Despite the existence of a plethora of international agreements there still seems to be a global ‘deficit of care’ surrounding efforts to combat challenges such as those posed by global warming and biodiversity conservation. More light can be thrown on the degree of care by measuring both the actual expenditures and the stated willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. However, actual expenditures are much lower than willingness to pay estimates recorded in the published literature. Using the criteria that the ‘right’ amount of conservation effort is one where the marginal economic benefits from conservation just equal the marginal costs of conservation, the paper explores the biodiversity conservation conundrum and concluded that, on the available evidence, the world does not care too much about this natural capital stock and bequests to future generations. An erratum to this article can be found at     

Competition policy: ten lessons learnt from the financial crisis

The financial crisis brought great challenges also for competition policy. The aim of this paper is to summarize the most important insights for competition policy that could be derived from the turbulent period 2008–2010. The financial crisis is seen as project that demanded sound management from competition policy and enforcement. The insights will be presented in the instructive form of ‘lessons learnt’ which represents a common approved project management technique. We come to the result that the financial crisis is not the result of ‘too much competition’, but of regulatory failure and that the main answers to the financial crisis have to come from ‘smart regulation’. The relaxation of competition policy would be the wrong policy response in troubled times since competition policy can play an important role in bringing the crisis economy back on track. In contrast to banking we see no economic rationale for rescue packages for other economic sectors by referring to systemic risk. The renaissance of industrial policy is viewed with great skepticism since empirical evidence shows that the effort of picking ‘winners’ all too often results in saving ‘losers’.