Toward an Evolutionary and Moral Science

Thorstein Veblen asked in 1898 why economics is not an evolutionary science; he also proposed a Darwinian paradigm shift for economics. Among the implications reviewed here was his claim that Darwinian principles applied to social entities as well as to biological phenomena. It is also argued that economists have additional reasons for taking Darwinian evolution seriously. Recent work on the evolution of altruism, cooperation and morality show that we are on the brink of developing an evolutionary-grounded theory of human motivation that breaks from the selfish utility-maximizer lambasted by Veblen. This new theory accepts a biological as well as a cultural foundation for moral dispositions. As noted here, the neglected British institutional economist John A. Hobson — who was an acquaintance of Veblen — foreshadowed this approach.     

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.     

Joseph Schumpeter and Thorstein Veblen on technological determinism,individualism and institutions

This article investigates Joseph Schumpeter's affinities with Thorstein Veblen with respect to technological change and determinism, the future of capitalism, individualism and institutions. From a methodological point of view, a common point in their analysis is their anti-teleological view regarding economics as a discipline. Also, in the Schumpeterian system, technology is the cornerstone of economic evolution and appears as the making of new combinations. In the Veblenian theoretical framework, the bearer of change is to be found, inter alia, in technology, just like in Schumpeter's works, although not without differences. They also share the opinion that technology revolutionises capitalism and has serious implications for its future as a system. Furthermore, regarding individualism, in his work Schumpeter stresses the importance of the social milieu on individual action, a fact which bears strong resemblance to the Veblenian notion of evolution as ‘depersonalized evolution’. In this sense, Schumpeter is very close to Veblen, although Schumpeter's approach could be classified in what is called institutionalist individualism, whereas Veblen could be classified as holist. Undoubtedly, the role of institutions is of great importance in both Schumpeter and Veblen. Ιnstitutions in the Schumpeterian schema play a central role closely related to the future of capitalism. Institutional and non-institutional factors enter into complex forms of interaction just like in Veblen's approach. There, institutions are part of the social milieu and their underlying framework, much wider than mere economic and social. Of course, the theoretical analyses of Schumpeter and Veblen are not devoid of differences springing mainly from their methodological approach such as the role of the individual in the capitalist process which is probably the most significant difference regarding the importance attributed to it in Schumpeter's early works. Also, the way technical change appears constitutes another difference. However, his views are quite close to Veblen's. After all, Schumpeter began to write in a social, political, theoretical and ideological environment at a time when evolutionary ideas dominated social thought.     

Cognition,Social Impulse,and the Principle of Adaptation: Insights into the Peirce-Veblen Connection

This article seeks to offer insights into the connections between Charles S. Peirce and Thorstein B. Veblen regarding their understanding of the logic of scientific thought and cognition. In this sense, this work explores how both Veblen and Peirce dismissed the Cartesian notion of unmediated cognition and how they sought to depict cognition as a process. Furthermore, this article presents Peirce’s concept of “social impulse” and Veblen’s “principle of adaptation” as complementary perspectives on science and cognition that have strong evolutionary content.     

An Ayresian View of Gandhian Economics

Economic waste stems from the abuse of power that interferes with the process of social provisioning. For Thorstein Veblen, waste stems from individual efforts to show superiority, corporate efforts to increase pecuniary returns without increasing industry, or national efforts to exert military dominance. For John Maynard Keynes, waste assumes the form of idle factories, unemployed workers, and unsold goods resulting from insufficient demand. From a broader perspective, waste results from the efforts of rentiers to increase their returns. Both dimensions of waste relate to the Fed and other central banks’ efforts to address the problem of social provisioning through the wealth effect. The ideas of Veblen and Keynes provide guidance for evaluating policy directed at enhancing the provisioning process. Based on Veblen’s ideas, policies should promote the life process and not conspicuous consumption. Based on Keynes ideas, policies should stimulate demand, increasing profits and, in turn, creating jobs.     

Veblen’s Imperial Germany and the Industrialization of Latin America

Veblen’s Imperial Germany is a theory of development and industrialization, and the role the business enterprise played in these processes. Through a reassessment of Veblen’s Imperial Germany, this paper explores the main aspects that Veblen considered about the industrialization of England and Germany, deriving theoretical implications for the preconditions of a successful industrialization and development, based on an evolutionary Institutional perspective. Veblen’s analysis is then used to analyze the current state of the industrialization of Latin America, evaluating the last two decades since the 1990s, and comparing the orthodox approach, the neostructural view and the Veblenian perspective, arguing for the validity of a policy framework not reduced only to targeted protectionism but emphasizing the necessity of generating the institutional preconditions suggested by Veblen in his seminal work.     

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.     

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.     

Veblen and the New Growth Theory: Community as the Source of Capital's Productivity

A century ago Thorstein Veblen argued that knowledge, which is produced and possessed by the community as a whole, is the foundation on which the productivity of "capital" rests. Orthodox economists chose to ignore Veblen and instead accepted John Bates Clark's definition of capital and the marginal productivity theory that goes with it. Recently, however, mainstream economists working on the "New Growth Theory" have rejected Clark's approach and have redefined capital so as to emphasize the importance of knowledge as well as its social character. Nevertheless, they still have an important lesson to learn from Veblen about growth, namely that technological development is nothing less than a process of cultural transformation.     

Original Institutional Economics and Political Anthropology: Reflections on the Nature of Coercive Power and Vested Interests in the Works of Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Clastres

Our inquiry advances a comparison of the anthropological content of Thorstein Veblen’s evolutionary perspective with the foundations of the political anthropology drawn from selected works of Pierre Clastres. We seek to establish that what can be referred to as a clastrean reference can simultaneously offer new perspectives on institutionalism, while maintaining a radical and emancipatory understanding of Veblen’s writings. In this sense, we seek to reconsider and reevaluate the role of economic surplus drawn from Veblen’s anthropology, while also offering a general and critical perspective for understanding the emergence of coercive power within societies.     

Veblen's critique of Marx's philosophical preconceptions of political economy

This paper explores some of the theoretical linkages between Thorstein Veblen and Karl Marx. Special reference is placed Veblen's criticisms of Marx and the Marxist tradition for adhering to the preconceptions of (a) the natural right of labour to the full product, and (b) the teleology of conscious agents directing action towards change. Veblen was incorrect to believe that Marx adhered to the natural right of labour thesis, but he was correct to assert that Marx utilized undesirable teleologies. Overall, however, Veblen was attempting to reformulate and modernise the materialistic conception of history through an evolutionary analysis of institutions. The two thinkers complement each other in important ways, although Veblen's analysis is more evolutionary, collectivist and holistic.     

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.”     

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.     

The Policy Ramifications of Capital as Ideas

In 1987, Baldwin Ranson wrote about capital and technology in economic growth. Ranson argued that capital should be defined as intangible ideas and technology that are not subject to supply and demand constraints. Thorstein Veblen (1908, 518) described his conception of capital as being “found in possession of something in the way of a body of technological knowledge, – knowledge serviceable and requisite to the quest of a livelihood.” John R. Commons (1934, 662) wrote in a similar vein that “capital is not an accumulation of past products of stored-up labor – these are transitory and aimless – capital is a going plant of industrial knowledge and experience.” More recently, Cesar Hidalgo (2015) and Paul Romer (1990, 1994) have also written about the idea of capital as ideas and the key to economic growth. Hidalgo (2015, 179) states that “the growth of information in the economy, which is ultimately the essence of economic growth, results from the coevolution of our species’ collective computation capacity.” The first section of this article explores the linkages between the older generation and more recent thinkers on the intersection of capital as technology and ideas. The second section explores the policy ramifications of this conceptualization of capital. Romer argues that temporary monopolies are needed to encourage investment in innovation. According to both Veblen and Ranson, these rules do not allow for the full social value of ideas to be utilized. The second part of this article also explores these differences using A. Allan Schmid’s situation-structure-performance (SSP) model.     

Institutionalism and the State: Founding Views Reexamined

Economists in the institutional tradition have spent a great deal of time dealing with the notions of governance and the state. Yet that school of thought has yet to develop a complete unified theory of either governance or the state. In the work Commons and Veblen we see very different levels of analysis and commentary on these issues. Both authors are recognized as founding thinkers in the Institutional school yet they differ on how they use their methods and they have differing ideas about the usefulness of the state. Still, considered together they present a fairly complete and useable set of ideas about how governance and the state work. This essay summarizes, clarifies, and somewhat expands on the views held by Commons and Veblen with the view of moving towards a clear and concise institutional theory of the state.

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.     

Veblen’s Two Types of Instinct and the Cognitive Foundations of Evolutionary-Institutional Economics

In this article, I provide a detailed examination of Thorstein Veblen’s conception of instincts, what he believed were the “prime movers in human behavior.” I outline the meaning of his division of instincts into simple and complex forms, and also document his account of their operational function and evolutionary origins. I then evaluate this understanding in relation to the new field of evolutionary psychology, and demonstrate how Veblen conceived of these instincts as interacting with habits and institutions. Finally, I illustrate one method of how the bio-cognitive level of behavioral reality could be integrated with the socio-institutional level of behavioral reality, and how an intermediate-interactive level between these two could have been generated. By doing so, I emphasize the need for scientifically accurate cognitive foundations to evolutionary-institutional economics (EIE)     

Contracts between a Firm and Its Constituents during Bankruptcy Crises

Thorstein Veblen highlighted a number of human instincts, one of which was the “parental bent.” In contrast to the other “positive” instincts, the parental bent is specifically other-regarding in that Veblen described it in terms of utilizing knowledge for the betterment of society. Veblen’s “parental bent” stresses the social embeddedness of humanity and the human instinct to care. Our ability to care is partially predicated on our social roles and the values embedded within those roles. Critically, this is influenced by the configuration of institutions within a society. Care is grossly under-valued. By drawing upon recent contributions to care in the context of an increased financialization of the economy and society, we seek to expand upon Veblen’s insight, and to argue that the most significant deficit confronting our capitalist society is not of the fiscal variety, but resides in care.