The evolutionary and non-Darwinian economics of Joseph Schumpeter

In a recent paper, Matthias Kelm (1997) accepts that `Schumpeter's definition of evolution does not contain any Darwinian mechanism such as natural selection or any other biological concept' and that Schumpeter `made no such attempt' to apply `Darwinian theory to economic evolution'. However, Kelm goes on to argue that Schumpeter would have been a Darwinian if circumstances were different. It is argued here that this contention is highly implausible because Schumpeter explicitly rejected biological metaphors and analogies in economics. Furthermore, Schumpeter misunderstood Darwinism. In his attempt to `interpret' Schumpeter as a Darwinian, Kelm himself misrepresents the three core principles of Darwinism. In addition Kelm's paper contains several misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the assessment of Schumpeter made by Hodgson (1993). This present response concludes that Schumpeter was indeed one of the greatest economists of the twentieth century and that he may legitimately be described as an `evolutionary economist'. However, he cautioned strongly against the use of biological metaphors in economics and there is no legitimate basis for describing his approach as Darwinian.     

Elements of Publicness in Urban Transit

This paper examines the claim that Veblen's theory of cultural evolution has generalized Darwinian principles to socioeconomic phenomena. Our argument takes place in the debate around "generalized Darwinism" in evolutionary and institutional economics. We claim that Veblen frequently relied on the concept of selection and considered institutions both as units and as factors of selection. We also argue that some of Veblen's insights can be clarified by expressing them in evolutionary-game theoretic terms. Thus, we suggest a close connection between the ontological framework of generalized Darwinism and the technical study of evolutionary phenomena through evolutionary game theory.     

Bioeconomics as economics from a Darwinian perspective

Bioeconomics—the merging of views from biology and economics—on the one hand invites the 'export' of situational logic and sophisticated optimization developed in economics into biology. On the other hand, human economic activity and its evolution, not least over the past few centuries, may be considered an instance for fruitfully applying ideas from evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory. The latter perspective is taken in the present paper. Three different aspects are discussed in detail. First, the Darwinian revolution provides an example of a paradigm shift which contrasts most significantly with the 'subjectivist revolution' that took place at about the same time in economics. Since many of the features of the paradigmatic change that were introduced into the sciences by Darwinism may be desirable for economics as well, the question is explored whether the Darwinian revolution can be a model for introducing a new paradigm in economic theory. Second, the success of Darwinism and its view of evolution have induced economists who are interested in an evolutionary approach in economics to borrow, more or less extensively, concepts and tools from Darwinian theory. Particularly prominent are constructions based on analogies to the theory of natural selection. Because several objections to such analogy constructions can be raised, generalization rather than analogy is advocated here as a research strategy. This means to search for abstract features which all evolutionary theories have in common. Third, the question of what a Darwinian world view might mean for assessing long term economic evolution is discussed. Such a view, it is argued, can provide a point of departure for reinterpreting the hedonistic approach to economic change and development. On the basis of such an interpretation bioeconomics may not only go beyond the optimization-cum-equilibrium paradigm currently prevailing in economics. It may also mean adding substantial qualifications to the subjectivism the neoclassical economists, at the turn of the century, were proud to establish in the course of their scientific revolution.     

Thorstein Veblen's Darwinian framework and gene-culture coevolution theory

At the turn of the previous century, Thorstein Veblen used Darwinian evolutionary principles to explain the macro-historical evolution of human societies, as well as the institutional structure of the modern pecuniary culture. Even if Veblen had a strong intuitive grasp of the evolutionary forces operating in society, he was not always clear and explicit in developing his ideas towards a full-fledged, consistent evolutionary social theory. This paper argues that a relatively recent theoretical approach, gene-culture coevolution theory, has the conceptual apparatus to remedy this problem and thus make Veblen's ideas an important part of contemporary evolutionary thinking in social theory.     

What If There Are No Conventional Price Mechanisms?

Inspired by Frederic (“Fred”) S. Lee’s theoretical contribution to institutional-heterodox economics, I make the case that the neoclassical price mechanism is not only flawed, but also irrelevant for the study of actual coordination mechanisms, hence the price mechanism — as a theory as well as a way of thinking — should be discarded. While this position was addressed by early institutionalists, starting with Thorstein Veblen, later institutionalists have not completely rejected the price mechanism. The sympathy for the price mechanism has prevented institutionalists (and other heterodox economists) from fully developing an alternative theoretical framework concerning how actual economic activities are organized. I, therefore, provide an institutionalist-heterodox framework of the provisioning process focusing on business enterprise activities. This framework shows how institutional economics becomes more refined and useful when it is married to other traditions in heterodox economics, in particular, Marxian, social, and post-Keynesian economics. Such an integrative approach is what Fred Lee showed through his work toward producing a better theory and policy for the underlying population.     

Schumpeter's theory of economic evolution: a Darwinian interpretation

A general Darwinian framework is employed to arrive at an interpretation of Schumpeter's work that brings out clearly its specific evolutionary aspects. Schumpeter's theory of economic evolution is seen to be still highly relevant to evolutionary economics, because it sheds light on some fundamental issues: the relationship between evolutionary theory and equilibrium analysis, the usefulness of Darwinian theory for economics, and the precise nature of the evolutionary forces at work in economic systems.     

Evolutionary Theories in Environmental and Resource Economics: Approaches and Applications

Recent advances in evolutionary theory have important implications for environmental economics. A short overview is offered of evolutionarythinking in economics. Subsequently, major concepts and approaches inevolutionary biology and evolutionary economics are presented andcompared. Attention is devoted, among others, to Darwinian selection,punctuated equilibrium, sorting mechanisms, Lamarckian evolution,coevolution and self-organization. Basic features of evolution, such assustained change, irreversible change, unpredictability, qualitativechange and disequilibrium, are examined. It is argued that there are anumber of fundamental differences as well as similarities betweenbiological and economic evolution. Next, some general implications ofevolutionary thinking for environmental economics are outlined. This isfollowed by a more detailed examination of potential uses ofevolutionary theories in specific areas of environmental economics,including sustainability and long run development theories, technologyand environment, ecosystem management and resilience, spatial evolutionand environmental processes, and design of environmental policy.     

Thorstein Veblen as Evolutionary Feminist Economist of the Progressive Era

Abstract

Just prior to the turn of the twentieth century, Thorstein Veblen advanced an evolutionary approach to feminist economics. A host of scholars considered in this inquiry are noted to have endorsed and also furthered his tradition. What distinguishes Veblen’s evolutionary approach to feminist economics is that he emphasizes that the roots of private property can be related to women being taken captive through warfare during the Age of Savagery. Instincts affecting behavior are viewed as relative constants, but which take on an evolutionary character when considered against what Veblen defines as four stages of social and economic development.     

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.     

“Social Freedom” in the Twenty-First Century: Rereading Polanyi

Karl Polanyi’s analysis of the genesis, crises, and institutional transformations of contemporary society is grounded on a theory of the basic features and dynamics of capitalism as a peculiar form of society. This article intends to develop this thesis on the basis of a reading of Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, with references to Polanyi’s preceding and later research. Polanyi’s theoretical and methodological achievements suggest a wide comparative outlook and offer a critique of economics, in addition to being deeply connected with his political philosophy. Polanyi’s approach seems to be nearer to the original institutional thought — from Karl Marx to Thorstein Veblen, from Max Weber to Adolf Löwe and Karl William Kapp — than to current neo-institutional tendencies in economics, sociology, and historiography. The hard problems society presently faces suggest the need to adhere to Polanyi’s radical point of view — that is, to a radical approach to Polanyi’s thought.     

In search of general evolutionary principles: Why Darwinism is too important to be left to the biologists

Bioeconomics emphasizes the common ontological ground between economics and biology. However, this does not necessarily mean that both disciplines collapse into one. Instead it is proposed here that Darwinism provides a general, meta-theoretical framework for dealing with complex evolving systems, consisting of populations of varied and replicating entities, which are found in both nature and human society. There is no alternative to the core Darwinian principles of variation, selection and inheritance to explain the evolution of such systems. Neither the actual existence of human intentionality, nor the hypothetical existence of Lamarckian processes of acquired character inheritance, offer a barrier to the use of Darwinian explanations. However, while Darwinian principles are always necessary to explain complex evolving population systems, they are never sufficient on their own. Such a generalized Darwinism can accommodate several different stances found in the literature on bioeconomics and elsewhere.      

Financialization in the American Pharmaceutical Industry: A Veblenian Approach

Thorstein Veblen’s theory of the business enterprise holds that business interests come to dominate industrial interests, with pecuniary returns being the dominant mindset under which economic activity is conducted. Under moneymanager capitalism, this is reflected in the increasing importance of profits from financial channels and the accumulation of intangible rent-generating assets to serve as the basis for capitalization — a process known as financialization. I examine this process of intangible asset accumulation within the context of the American pharmaceutical industry using Veblen’s theory of the business enterprise as a lens. I show that intangible assets have come to dominate productive capital on pharmaceutical enterprise balance sheets, suggesting that pharmaceutical profits are accumulated through rent-seeking channels rather than productive ones, in line with Veblen’s theory, and provide evidence of the financialization of this industry.     

The Evolution and Devolution of Bank Regulation in the United States

Development economics is understood as a postwar phenomenon without antecedents. Yet, Veblen's contribution to development economics was once widely disseminated and acknowledged. Veblen's evolutionary economics centered on historically relative and limited truths applicable to specific cultures. Veblen's growth theory is a theory of economic development: quantitative accumulation is significant because it engenders qualitative change. Veblen's analysis of the harnessing of the economic potential centers on the ability of a society to successfully introduce scientific and technological advances, giving rise to increasing returns as the surplus is invested in industrial activities. Veblen presented oblique comments and startling insights in a non-empirical manner.     

经济学究竟是严密自然科学还是行为科学?——A.罗森伯格经济学哲学思想解读

A.罗森伯格对经济学在认知地位上的两重性或两难困境有深刻的认识。一方面,经济学很像标准的科学理论,同时经济学定律本应有资格成为科学定律。罗森伯格认为,基于统一科学理想,并追寻自然过程的自动平衡的机理,在典型科学理论(牛顿力学与达尔文自然选择学说)和在经济学中同样取得极大成功。然而另一方面,经济学在预测力上却远为逊色。为了破解这一两难,罗森伯格把预测失败的症结归咎为人类行为所特有的意向性。换句话说,经济学毕竟与自然科学不同,它与其他社会科学拥有对信念-行动-欲望的意向性解释框架的承诺。     

Veblen,Veblenian Social Practices,and Prosperity Theology

Abstract:

At the turn of the twentieth century (1910), Veblen published an essay which explored the relationship between Christianity and capitalism by focusing on the interaction between the two institutions as they evolved. Veblen’s analysis begins by detailing the evolution of Christianity prior to the age of industrialized capitalism, after which he explores the evolutionary interplay between the two. Just over ten years prior to the publication of this essay (1899), Veblen published the Theory of the Leisure Class while over ten years after the publication of the essay (1923), Veblen dissected the sales efforts of Christianity in a note titled “Salesmanship and the Churches.” Nearly 100 years later, these three works together explain a modern and distinctly American religious movement—Prosperity Theology. This research argues that Prosperity Theology as practiced in the United States over the past nearly half century embodies and integrates all three of these works by Veblen and proposes the conceptual term “Veblenian Social Practice.”     

Habit,Decision-Making,and Rationality: Comparing Thorstein Veblen and Early Herbert Simon

The article aims to contribute to the convergence between institutional and neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics. It intends to help unify the behavioral foundations of these two strands of thought by returning to the original views of their main historical inspirations. It thus proposes a comparative analysis of the theory of human behavior developed by Thorstein Veblen and Herbert Simon, respectively. The article notably discusses how Simon’s early work links together the notions of habit, rationality, and the decision-making process, and explores the extent to which his views are consistent with, complementary to, or divergent from Veblen’s. The article highlights several commonalities between Simon and Veblen’s views on habits. However, Simon departs from Veblen in developing a dual model of human behavior which clearly differentiates habit-based from decision-based behaviors. The article argues that neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economists should go beyond this binary model and build on the pragmatist-Veblenian approach, in which these two dimensions are intimately entangled. This process could allow the economists in question to take advantage of the most valuable insights of institutional economics regarding the interactions between individual choices and habits and institutions.     

International Monetary Reform: A Review Article

Original institutional economics (OIE) has three significant, but apparently contradictory, definitions of institution(s) stemming from Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, and J. Fagg Foster. In this first installment of a two-part paper I address this apparent contradiction by developing an "irenic reconciliation" of these definitions using a methodological approach I call "critical institutionalism"— a synthesis of the OIE in the tradition of the Veblen, Commons, and Foster, the pragmatism theory of Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey, the critical realist methodology of Margaret Archer, and the critical realism of Roy Bhaskar. In so doing, I provide an alternative discussion to that of some current institutionalists who propose to replace the existing OIE definitions of institution(s) with "consensual definitions" developed in the discourse with non-OIE traditions. I propose that there is still considerable analytical value in the OIE definitions, and that replacing them with non-OIE-originating concepts would unnecessarily carry OIE away from its methodological and philosophical roots. In the second installment of this paper (yet to be published), I proceed to demonstrate the analytical value these "reconciled" definitions have for the OIE project.     

“Generalized Darwinism” and the quest for an evolutionary theory of policy-making

According to the “Generalized Darwinism” movement (GD), the three principles of variation, selection and retention/replication (labeled “Darwinian” in some variants of GD) can and should be used as a meta-theoretical framework for the explanation of evolutionary processes in the sociocultural domain. Despite their biological origins, the various variants of GD aim at redefining these principles in a way that is supposed to abstract from any domain-specific particulars. We argue that in order to qualify as an adequate meta-theoretical framework for evolutionary economics, GD should not only inspire and guide positive theory development in evolutionary economics, but also be able to support viable practical policy implications. Examining its potential to do so, however, leads us to the conclusion that in its specific deductive variant proposed by Hodgson & Knudsen (HKGD), it risks systematically misguiding evolutionary policy advice. Competing variants, such as the one proposed by Pelikan, fare better in this regard.