Marriage and trust: some lessons from economics

This paper examines the role of marriage as an institution forproviding couples with the confidence to make long-term investmentsin their relationship. No-fault divorce has undermined the notionof marriage as a contract, thereby reducing the security offeredby marriage and promoting opportunism by men. This has weakenedthe bargaining power of wives, both within marriage and whendivorce occurs. Current legal reforms will improve the economicposition of all divorced wives, including those who are primarilyresponsible for the breakdown of their marriage. The latterfeature will encourage opportunism by women and make men lessprepared to invest in their marriage. The paper argues thatthe only way to achieve parity between men and women, and deteropportunism by either sex, is to return to fault-based divorce.Both divorce settlements and the custody of children shoulddepend on preceding marital conduct.     

Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics

In this paper we review evolutionary economic modelling in relation to environmental policy. We discuss three areas in which evolutionary economic models have a particularly high added value for environmental policy-making: the double externality problem, technological transitions and consumer demand. We explore the possibilities to apply evolutionary economic models in environmental policy assessment, including the opportunities for making policy-making endogenous to environmental innovation. We end with a critical discussion of the challenges that remain.     

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.     

Economic selection and the role of government: Some lessons from evolutionary biology

The economic system is not divinely ordained. It is the product of human beings and can therefore be questioned and altered if necessary. The Reagan and Bush administrations elevated the status of those extreme right economists who wish to preserve privilege by claiming the divine right of market outcomes. It is the argument of this paper that this divine right has its roots in a Victorian view of natural selection. It is instructive to recognize that this view no longer holds sway in biology. It is even less true in the economic sphere.     

Understanding evolutionary processes in non-manufacturing industries: Empirical insights from the shakeout in pharmaceutical wholesaling

Although the empirical pattern of industry shakeout has been documented for many manufacturing industries, we know little about the processes by which market structure evolves in non-manufacturing service industries. This paper establishes detailed empirical observations about the consolidation of a single non-manufacturing industry, the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. These observations are used to explore differences between manufacturing and wholesaling in both the patterns and explanations for consolidation and analyze the explanatory power of theories that link consolidation to technological change. The analysis demonstrates that theories developed to explain consolidation in new manufacturing industries have varying degrees of applicability to the consolidation of drug wholesaling. The observed patterns of exit, innovation, and growth suggest important modifications to evolutionary theories of market structure.     

Smith,Marshall and Young on division of labour and economic growth

The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the theory of division of labour and economic growth proposed by Adam Smith and developed by Alfred Marshall and Allyn Young. In their approach division of labour is the main engine of growth and plays a central role in capital accumulation and technological progress. We suggest that, according to their theory: 1) economic growth is endogenous; 2) it has the nature of a cumulative, path-dependent process; and 3) it can be described as a disequilibrium process, supported by competitive forces. We argue that these aspects make the contributions of Smith, Marshall and Young still insightful for the development of growth theory, even in the light of the modern approach of endogenous growth theory.     

Pluralism(s) in economics: lessons from complexity and innovation. A review paper

My analysis focuses on two main observations. First, many competing schools of thoughts are currently present in economics with no predominant paradigm. We are experiencing an era of pluralism (Davis J Econ Methodol 14(3):275–290, 2007, Camb J Econ 32:249–366, 2008; Colander 2000; Colander et al. J Polit Econ 16(4):485–499, 2004). The term ‘pluralism’ is extremely interesting since, as I will show, it has different dimensions to it. These offer insights into interpreting the tangled universe of the economics. Second, there is a progressive intertwining of innovation economics with complexity economics, which I argue provides an instance of the above-described shift toward pluralism.     

Behavior and cognition of economic actors in evolutionary economics

An evolutionary perspective on the nature of economic activity requires a theory of human behavior and cognition that highlights human creativity and innovativeness, while at the same time recognizing that in many arenas of economic life change is slow and more routine aspects of behavior obtain. It is proposed that Herbert Simon’s conception of human behavior as largely “bounded rational” is capable of suiting both aspects. However, to be able to encompass the enormous advances humans have achieved over the years in their ability to meet a variety of wants, a theory of behavior and cognition suitable for evolutionary economics needs to recognize the evolving cultural context of economic behavior and cognition.     

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.     

Selfishness, cooperation, the evolutionary point of view and its implications for economics

The assumed selfishness of market actors could be considered in the context of two perspectives: macroeconomic and microeconomic. The first concerns the market mechanism as the most effective from the social well-being or the wealth of a nation points of view. The latter is based on the premises of the nature of human beings. I have distinguished between two possible ways of understanding selfish forms of behaviour in the market: as rational economic behaviour i.e. the most effective from the gains and losses point of view (i.e. public interests in the works of A. Smith) or as selfish from the psychological point of view (this is mostly presented by J. S. Mill's theory). The first approach seems to be concerned with the creation of the most effective market mechanism from the State's point of view. In the context of historical processes over 400 years, cultural evolution “has been promoting” selfish behaviour; for example, it was widely presented in T. Hobbes' works and then for over 200 years, the theory of A. Smith has been supporting and moulding the institutional context of market and social behaviour. Thus, positive economics describes the market created by the ideas of a neo-classical paradigm, which is based on the normative premises of A. Smith and J. S. Mill. Moreover, the virtual market behaviour described by “effects” (f. e. Veblen's effect) and failures seems to be a manifestation of a discrepancy between market reality and the classical assumptions.The social evolution of human beings has been advantageous to the human species. Moreover, from the social point of view, pro-social behaviour is “natural” as well as desirable and it has been preferred by the cultural evolution. Competitiveness assumes that somebody has to lose, because someone gains. Cooperation looks for gains for all the players. The choice is political, and not imposed by selfishness.     

Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: Comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches

The study of the relationships between innovation and the competitiveness of industries is an important topic for both, academic research and economic policy. The huge economics literature flourished in the last couple of decades on the subject broadly falls into two distinct research traditions, namely the mainstream R&D spillovers approach and the evolutionary economics view. Both traditions agree on the important role played by innovation and the inter-sectoral diffusion of advanced knowledge for the competitive performance of industrial sectors. Behind this general agreement, however, the two approaches are radically different. This paper shows that, at a deeper level of analysis, the mainstream and evolutionary views do indeed differ with respect to their theoretical foundations, empirical research and policy implications. In a nutshell, while the mainstream R&D spillover approach is inspired by a traditional view of economic policy based on a market-oriented approach, the evolutionary view is on the contrary consistent with the idea that institutional arrangements and policy interventions do indeed play a fundamental role for shaping innovation patterns and their impacts on the competitiveness of industries.     

The rule approach in evolutionary economics: A methodological template for empirical research

Dopfer and Potts (2008) have proposed a new analytic foundation to evolutionary economics based on the unified rule approach. While they contend that their approach is ontologically and analytically coherent and useful, scholars sympathetic with it, e.g., Ostrom and Basurto (2011), have called for further methodological and empirical specification. In the same vein, this paper seeks to develop the Dopfer-Potts framework by proposing an analytic methodology to translate their rule-based approach into an operational method for identifying and testing hypotheses that relate to rules. It does so by defining a methodology connecting explanandum (response rule) and explanantia (factor rules) at the same level of rules. The concept of a ‘savings rule’ serves as a roving example that later is extended into a case study. The paper offers a methodological template for applied evolutionary analysis in economics.     

Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature

During the last two decades we have seen a revival of interest in the works of Joseph Schumpeter and “evolutionary” ideas in economics more generally. A professional society honouring Schumpeter's name has been founded, and linked to it we have had for more than fifteen years now a professional journal devoted to this stream of thought. However, it has been argued that, despite these developments, the link between Schumpeter's own work and the more recent contributions to evolutionary economics is in fact rather weak. This paper considers this claim. Based on an analysis of Schumpeter's contribution to economics the paper presents an overview and assessment of the more recent literature in this area. It is argued that although there are important differences between Schumpeter's work and some of the more recent contributions, there nevertheless remains a strong common core that clearly distinguishes the evolutionary stream from other approaches (such as, for instance, so-called “new growth theory”). RID="*" ID="*" Many people have contributed to this paper in various ways. Jon Hekland at the Norwegian Research Council started it all by asking me to make an overview of the contribution from “evolutionary economics” to our understanding of contemporary economies. Several people helped me on the way by supplying written material, comments and suggestions, and I am indebted to all of them. Brian Arthur, Stan Metcalfe, Keith Pavitt, Erik Reinert, Paolo Saviotti and Bart Verspagen may be particularly mentioned. A preliminary version was presented at the conference “Industrial R&D and Innovation Policy Learning – Evolutionary Perspectives and New Methods for Impact Assessment” organised by the Norwegian Research Council (“SAKI”) at Leangkollen, Asker, April 18–19.2002. I wish to thank the discussant, Tor Jakob Klette, and the participants at the conference for useful feedback. Moreover I have benefited from comments and suggestions from the editors and referees of this journal. The final responsibility is mine, however. Economic support from the Norwegian Research Council (“SAKI”) is gratefully acknowledged.     

Edith Elura Tilton Penrose: life, contribution and influence

Forty years since the publication of The Theory of the Growthof the Firm, Edith Penrose's contribution to economics and businessstudies is currently receiving increasing acknowledgement andappreciation. Her ideas arguably dominate recent thinking, atleast on the issue of the theory of the firm and strategic management.This introductory paper presents Penrose's live and assessesher contribution and influence so far.     

Income growth,debt and deficits: lessons from subSaharan Africa

This paper investigates the growth potential of subSaharan African countries to feed their growing populations. A model is specified that incorporates the effects of government consumption as well as the servicing of external debt, two issues over which concern has been expressed. In terms of income per head, it is found that only two countries (Kenya and Malawi) show positive growth, apart from oil-exporting countries. This raises serious questions about the ability of these countries to feed their growing populations. In particular it seems that Ghana and Zambia may face acute shortages of food in the near future, unless there is a change of policy.     

Bringing institutions into evolutionary economics: another view with links to changes in physical and social technologies

Like Nelson (2002), I make a case for bringing institutions into evolutionary economics. But unlike Nelson, who defines institutions as social technologies consisting of rules-routines, I define them in agreement with North (1990) as humanly devised rules-constraints - such as formal law and informal social norms - but also view them, to accommodate most of Nelson's approach, as constraining the variety of rules-routines employable by agents. I show that this definition has advantages for communicating with modern institutional analysis, for clarifying how institutions can influence, and be influenced by, changes in physical and social technologies, and for producing policy implications.JEL Classification: B52, B15, N01, A10I thank Niclas Berggren, Thrainn Eggertsson, Gunnar Eliasson, Geoffrey Hodgson, Dan Johansson, Nils Karlson, Staffan Laestadius, Richard Nelson, Mark Perlman, Viktor Vanberg, Gerhard Wegner, the participants of seminars at the University of Jena and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on earlier drafts.