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.      

品牌生态环境与品牌发展——达尔文生物进化思想对品牌发展演进的启示

在品牌生态环境变化日益激烈的今天,分析品牌生态环境对品牌发展的影响成为品牌理论研究领域的重点课题。达尔文生物进化思想对这一课题的研究具有极大的借鉴作用,品牌的发展过程与生物物种的发展与进化遵循着类似的基本规律。     

Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism

How should social scientists, inclined to an evolutionary theory of aspects of human culture like science, technology, business organization and practice, react to proposals that they embrace a “Universal Darwinism”? The most prominent variety of Universal Darwinism argues for close counterparts between the variables and mechanisms of cultural evolution and biological evolution, for example proposing the concept of “memes” as units of culture. Other Universal Darwinists propose, more flexibly, that human culture and biological species both change over time through a process that involves variation and selection, but that the details of the processes may be very different. This essay argues that the narrower form of Universal Darwinism should not be acceptable to social scientists. The differences in the details of cultural evolution and biological evolution are considerable. On the other hand, if Universal Darwinism provides a roomy intellectual tent welcoming scholars studying a variety of topics, with the unifying element being a dynamic theory involving variation and selection, but with the key variables and mechanisms being recognized as perhaps differing greatly between biology and human culture, we can be happy in that camp. Evolutionary Social Science and Universal Darwinism.     

Darwinism in economics: from analogy to continuity

Currently there is an ongoing discussion about how Darwinian concepts should be harnessed to further develop economic theory. Two approaches to this question, Universal Darwinism and the continuity hypothesis, are presented in this paper. It is shown whether abstract principles can be derived from Darwin’s explanatory model of biological evolution that can be applied to cultural evolution. Furthermore, the relation of the ontological basis of biological and cultural evolution is clarified. Some examples illustrate the respective potential of the two approaches to serve as a starting-point for theory development.

论企业技术创新内部达尔文主义的合理性

企业技术创新中的内部达尔文主义的本质就是外部技术创新竞争与选择的企业内部化。基于高技术企业内部的技术创新竞争实例,从生物学、哲学、管理学和经济学等多个角度分析了技术创新竞争内部化的合理性。     

企业技术创新内部达尔文主义发展历史的比较研究

运用案例分析法和比较分析法,对高科技企业技术创新内部达尔文主义产生的背景、历史发展进程及各阶段特征等问题进行了尝试性研究。     

A theory of classification and evolution of technologies within a Generalised Darwinism

This paper here proposes a theory of classification and evolution of technology based on taxonomic characteristic of interaction between technologies that is an under-studied field of research in economics of technical change and management of technology. The proposed classification of technologies, in a broad analogy with evolutionary ecology of parasites, within a theoretical framework of Generalised Darwinism, is: (1) parasitic technologies, (2) commensal technologies, (3) mutualistic technologies, (4) symbiotic technologies. This theory here suggests the property of mutual benefaction from interaction between different technologies and the theorem of not independence of any technology to explain and predict characteristics and evolutionary pathways of technologies over time. Overall, then, this study may be useful for bringing a new perspective in economics of innovation to categorise and analyse the interaction between technologies that can be a ground work for development of more sophisticated concepts to explain and predict the evolution of technology and generalise aspects of technological change in human society.     

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.     

In defence of degrowth

This article defends the proposal of sustainable degrowth. A starting premise is that resource and CO2 limits render further growth of the economy unsustainable. If degrowth is inevitable, the question is how it can become socially sustainable, i.e. a prosperous and stable, rather than a catastrophic, descent. Pricing mechanisms alone are unlikely to secure smooth adaptation; a full ensemble of environmental and redistributive policies is required, including - among others - policies for a basic income, reduction of working hours, environmental and consumption taxes and controls on advertising. Policies like these, that threaten to “harm” the economy, are less and less likely to be implemented within existing market economies, whose basic institutions (financial, property, political, and redistributive) depend on and mandate continuous economic growth. An intertwined cultural and political change is needed that will embrace degrowth as a positive social development and reform those institutions that make growth an imperative. Sustainable degrowth is therefore not just a structuring concept; it is a radical political project that offers a new story and a rallying slogan for a social coalition built around the aspiration to construct a society that lives better with less.     

Multidimensional generalized Gini indices

Summary. The axioms that characterize the generalized Gini social evaluation orderings for one-dimensional distributions are extended to the multidimensional attributes case. A social evaluation ordering is shown to have a two-stage aggregation representation if these axioms and a separability assumption are satisfied. In the first stage, the distributions of each attribute are aggregated using generalized Gini social evaluation functions. The functional form of the second-stage aggregator depends on the number of attributes and on which version of a comonotonic additivity axiom is used. The implications of these results for the corresponding multidimensional indices of relative and absolute inequality are also considered.Received: 20 August 2003, Revised: 26 May 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D63. Correspondence to: John A. WeymarkWe are grateful to our referee for his or her comments.     

In defence of the institutional revolution

I defend my thesis laid out in The Institutional Revolution against the comments made by McCloskey, Espin and Mokyr, and Langlois, who all believe that the weight of the great institutional transition is too great for my theory of measurement, and who all quibble with some aspects of my historical analysis. I argue that some of the comments fail to fully appreciate the Coasean approach, and that most of the historical comments miss the mark. I begin with a short discussion of Coase, and then turn to each author in turn.     

Toward Generalized Evolutionism: Beyond “Generalized Darwinism” and Its Critics

This article seeks to transcend the debate regarding “generalized Darwinism” or “universal Darwinism” for the social sciences. Highlighting recent discoveries in evolutionary biology, the article argues that it is no longer tenable to insist that (neo-)Darwinism is the only proper doctrine for understanding biological evolution. Moreover, social evolution is much more than purely (neo-)Darwinian or (neo-)Lamarckian. As such, the debate on whether we deploy only (neo-)Darwinism or (neo-)Lamarckism — generalized or not — to understand social evolution is a red herring. Instead, social scientists should embrace “generalized evolutionism,” a more accommodating and versatile doctrine that subsumes “(generalized) Darwinism” or “(generalized) Lamarckism.” Empirical inquiries that deploy “generalized evolutionism” have shed important new light on some critical puzzles in human society: from institutional change to the foundation of economic development before 1500 AD, through the coming of the industrial revolution, to the evolution of the international system. More empirical efforts along this line of theorizing are needed.     

In defence of Adam Smith's theory of value

Abstract

This paper defends Adam Smith against his critics on his ‘additive’ theory of value as well as his theory of ‘falling rate of profits’. It argues that Adam Smith did not forget the raw materials, and so forth, in his resolution of the price into wages, profits, and rent, and that the constraint binding on the total income was also taken into account by treating rent as the residual. It further argues that there is no fallacy of composition in Smith's explanation for the ‘falling rate of profits’. It was explained on the basis of rising real wages and the farmers’ inability to shift the burden of the rise in wages from profit to rent in the context of a growing economy.     

In (limited but affirmative) defence of nhilism

In this article I shall define, a form of nihilism that can be identified with economics. Nihilists typically allow room for free will and subjectivism. Futhermore, societal, political and economic factors are not exogenously given to us. They are the intended, and unintended, consequences of human action. Consequently radical indeterminancy is considered important as the future is largely unknowable. Once one accepts this type of nihilism, the type of economics we practice is radically different. However, we do not deny the posssibility of economic theorizing. Instead of generating unrealistic, stable and determinate equilibria, the sensible nihilist, will consider other possibilities. For example, more emphasis will be placed upon statements of tendency and adjustment processes.     

Nash equilibrium and generalized integration for infinite normal form games

Infinite normal form games that are mathematically simple have been treated [ Harris, C.J., Stinchcombe, M.B., Zame, W.R., in press. Nearly compact and continuous normal form games: characterizations and equilibrium existence. Games Econ. Behav.]. Under study in this paper are the other infinite normal form games, a class that includes the normal forms of most extensive form games with infinite choice sets.Finitistic equilibria are the limits of approximate equilibria taken along generalized sequences of finite subsets of the strategy spaces. Points must be added to the strategy spaces to represent these limits. There are direct, nonstandard analysis, and indirect, compactification and selection, representations of these points. The compactification and selection approach was introduced [Simon, L.K., Zame, W.R., 1990. Discontinuous games and endogenous sharing rules. Econometrica 58, 861–872]. It allows for profitable deviations and introduces spurious correlation between players' choices. Finitistic equilibria are selection equilibria without these drawbacks. Selection equilibria have drawbacks, but contain a set-valued theory of integration for non-measurable functions tightly linked to, and illuminated by, the integration of correspondences.     

A new class of deprivation-based generalized Gini indices

Summary. This paper attempts to merge two strands of the literature on relative deprivation and generalized Gini indices by designing a new class of generalized Gini indices based on the concept of relative deprivation. In this connection, rank-dependent marginal deprivation functions are introduced. A new class of generalized Gini indices is derived axiomatically. It turns out to be the sum of modified versions of the S-Gini and the I-Gini introduced by Donaldson and Weymark (1980). Received: December 23, 1998; revised version: November 9, 1999     

Background risk in generalized expected utility theory

Summary. In this paper, it is shown that, for a wide range of risk-averse generalized expected utility preferences, independent risks are complementary, contrary to the results for expected utility preferences satisfying conditions such as proper and standard risk aversion. Received: August 10, 2001; revised version: June 18, 2002 RID="*" ID="*"I thank Simon Grant and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and criticism. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Senior Fellowship and Australian Research Council Large Grant A79800678.     

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’.