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.     

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 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.      

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.     

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.     

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.     

The firm as an interactor: firms as vehicles for habits and routines

This paper pursues a research agenda inspired by Richard Nelson and Sidney Winters Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982). This seminal work applied the Darwinian concepts of variation, replication and selection to the evolution of firms. It proposed a level of evolution, replication and selection at a level higher than individuals or genes, involving the replication and selection of routines and institutions. Significantly, the applicability or otherwise of these Darwinian concepts depends on precise definitions of terms such as replication and selection. The present essay builds on previous work where the concepts of replication (Godfrey-Smith, 2000; Aunger, 2002; Hodgson, 2003b) and selection (Price, 1995; Frank, 1998; Knudsen, 2002b, 2003) have been refined. We deploy the key concepts of replicator and interactor from the modern philosophy of biology (Hull, 1981, 1988). It is shown that while habits and routines can be regarded as replicators, there is a case for regarding firms and similarly cohesive organizations as interactors. We explore some of the implications of this result and provide an important component in the construction of a multiple-level evolutionary theory, involving replicating units at several socio-economic levels.JEL Classification: B25, B52, D20, D83, L20Correspondence to: Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Malting House, 1 Burton End, West Wickham, Cambridgeshire CB1 6SD, UK     

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.     

Darwinian paradigm,cultural evolution and human purposes: on F.A. Hayek’s evolutionary view of the market

The claim that the Darwinian paradigm of blind-variation-and-selective-retention can be generalized from the biological to the socio-cultural realm has often been questioned because of the critical role played by human purposeful design in the process of cultural evolution. In light of the issue of how human purposes and evolutionary forces interact in socio-economic processes the paper examines F.A. Hayek’s arguments on the “extended order” of the market (capitalism), in particular with regard to their policy implications. Its focus is on the tension that exists in Hayek’s work between a rational liberal and an agnostic evolutionary perspective. A re-construction of his arguments is suggested that allows for a reconciliation of these seemingly contradictory views.     

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.     

Social polarization, fiscal instability and growth

We present a dynamic model of fiscal policy in a simple growth framework where social polarization (of preferences) plays a central role in the evolution of fiscal instability and growth collapse. In a highly polarized society, a deficit occurs endogenously, fiscal spending path becomes more volatile, output collapses, and economic growth rate is reduced along the transition path to a new lower level of output. One novel feature is that the size of fiscal deficit, the magnitude of fiscal volatility, and the size of reduction in output and growth rate are explicitly shown to be increasing functions of the degree of social polarization. This is because of the positive relationship between the polarization of preferences and the incentive for policymakers (or socio-economic groups) to overexploit the government resources in a common pool setting (polarization effect). Thereby, we offer a fiscal instability channel that negatively links social polarization and growth, which is an alternative yet distinct explanation for the empirical finding that social polarization is harmful to growth. Moreover, we fully distinguish the incentive to engage in such short-term policies under political uncertainty from that under polarization. Polarization and political uncertainty are shown to be distinct yet critical to the dynamic coordination failure in the common pool setting.     

SELECTED PROBLEMS OF INTER-COUNTRY COMPARISONS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE EEC

The formidable expansion in the scope of the United Nations International Comparison Project has brought into evidence limitations of the methodology used in the first three phases. The author considers that there are two indispensable conditions needed to give renewed impetus to the ICP: (a) the objectives must be redefined, and (b) the methodology must be built on an entirely new basis. He considers the broad lines of such an evolution to be the following. (a) The objective of volume comparison must be kept distinct from that of purchasing power comparison, given that both the basic material and the formulae to be used at the aggregate level differ in the two cases. (b) At the basic heading level, it is proposed, for both volume and purchasing power comparisons, to replace the multilateral approach by a “minimum scale” binary and unilateral approach, and to use the EKS method. This will make possible an improvement in the accuracy of the estimates, a reduction in the overall costs, and a drastic reduction in execution time. What is more, it would be possible to regionalize the worldwide comparison, in the sense that the results of the basic heading comparisons already obtained at the regional level for regional purposes can be used as an input in the framework of the worldwide comparison. At the aggregate level, in the framework of volume comparison, it is proposed that a constant price procedure in the spatial sense should continue to be used. It is, however, proposed that the prices of the set of countries (GK) be replaced by a structure of common “equi-distant” prices (G). This would permit the elimination of the significant systematic distortions observed in the comparison between rich and poor countries in the first three phases of ICP. What is more, this gives maximum stability to results obtained for the same countries at different geographical levels. By using a set of common “equi-distant” quantities, the same advantage can be obtained in the purchasing power comparison.     

Statistical modeling of land-cover changes based on key socio-economic indicators

Landscapes are complex human–environment systems operating at spatio-temporal scales. Time is just as important as space when researching landscape changes. These changes are influenced by both environmental and socio-economic factors. However, correlations between environmental landscape attributes and land-cover patterns/changes are weakened by human activities such as intensification of agriculture eliminating the constraints of water and nutrient availability. Relations between changes in socio-economic organisation and land cover become apparent only over a longer period of time. Thus, in our study, we focused on socio-economic factors and their long-term effects on land cover. We present a method to (i) differentiate types of land-cover changes at district level, (ii) model correlations between socio-economic factors and land cover changes and (iii) identify key socio-economic indicators of land-cover changes between 1945 and 1999 in a German marginal rural landscape.We employed agricultural land-cover data gained from the interpretation of multi-temporal aerial photographs. Based on these data, we differentiated types of land-cover changes, characterising different directions of agricultural land-cover changes in the observation time period. Various socio-economic aspects were considered by introducing data representing factors of demography, employment, economy, infrastructure, agricultural structure and policy. The relations between time series of land-cover data and of socio-economic data were modeled with the help of redundancy analysis. Correlation coefficients were used to identify key socio-economic indicators of land-cover changes. The results showed that a relatively high percentage of variance in land-cover data can be explained by socio-economic factors. The types of land-cover changes can be characterised by combinations of key socio-economic indicators. The indicators can be helpful to reconstruct land-cover changes in other regions. Thus, they provide a basis for the development of sustainable land-cover management systems.     

职业分层、中产阶级与收入分配

社会职业不仅反映着人们在社会、经济生活中所处的分工角色,它也带来了人们在收入水平和社会经济地位方面的差距和不同,在各种职业背后存在着以生产条件的占有关系为依据的社会生产关系。社会不可能通过消除普通生产劳动行业和职业,让人们都进入"中等收入"职业。因此,要缩小社会收入分配领域的巨大差距,必须改变现有的分配结构,在初次分配领域,即物质生产领域,进行分配制度的改革,增加普通劳动者的收入,使普通劳动者能够通过勤奋劳动达到"中等收入"水平,这才是在社会主义制度下"扩大中等收入者群体"的正确途径。所谓"人力资本"的收益不过是在雇佣劳动制度的生产方式下,部分人能以物质生产乃至资本主义竞争所必需的知识为条件,进入社会生产关系中具有一定社会经济地位的职业,在这种职业上他们利用社会生产关系所赋予的对生产与竞争能力的控制,从社会剩余产品中占有一定份额。因此,"人力资本"所有者的收入并不是所谓"人力资本"的创造,而是由社会生产关系所决定的收入分配形式。     

The Affluent Society after Twenty-five Years

This paper places Commons and his friend, Edward Alsworth Ross, in the context of the attack by Richard T. Ely and Lester Frank Ward on a conception of history that attributed all progress in human welfare to natural processes — Darwinian natural selection and market mechanisms. According to this conception, interference with these natural processes would be counterproductive. Ward, a confirmed Darwinian, coined the term "artificial selection" when he proposed an alternate conception that attributed most progress to the disciplined application of human intelligence. Ross adapted Ward's artificial-natural distinction to the problem of social order, arguing that random variation and survival of the fittest can generate social controls that preserve order in small communities, but that only artificial social controls can keep order in complex societies. Ross's distinction made its way into the Legal Foundations of Capitalism and Institutional Economics where Commons focused on the evolution of what Ross labeled artificial social controls — laws governing the wage bargain and the behavior of corporations. In the process Commons confronted the problem of deliberation, the problem of obtaining intelligent actions and decisions from passionate, biased humans organized in democratic societies.     

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.     

Why Meso? On “Aggregation” and “Emergence”, and Why and How the Meso Level is Essential in Social Economics

Simplistic aggregation in idealized “markets” versus structural emergence in complex and path-dependent processes have always marked a “continental divide” between neoclassical mainstream economics and all kinds of evolutionary and institutional social economics. This paper deals with institutional, or structural, emergence and argues that the meso level (to be specific) is the proper aggregate level for social economic analyses of complex systems and processes. Also, neo-Schumpeterian economists have stressed recently the issue of an “institutional trajectory” taking place on the meso economic level. This paper argues that the creative ideas of a Schumpeterian entrepreneur are not a sufficient explanation in this case. Using an evolutionary interpretation of a simple game-theoretic formalism (the Folk Theorem), the paper strives to demonstrate that the meso level, as the proper level of institutional emergence, must and can be endogenously explained from a process of interactive problem-solving of interdependent agents, in their struggle for coordination under strong uncertainty. It will be illustrated that a meso-sized socio-economic group co-evolves, and is constituted, together with the institution that in turn serves as the solution to the coordination problem. The practical and policy implications of the argument are discussed.

Preferences for social protection: Theory and empirics

Empirical cross-country evidence suggests that countries position themselves along a sort of Market Regulation (MR)-Social Expenditure (SE) trade-off “line”. Theoretically, it is clear that there exists a certain degree of substitutability between SE and MR, since both can provide a cushion against socio-economic risks. However, market regulation is an inefficient means to provide protection, since it might reduce productivity and the employment level. Still, to be politically viable efficiency-enhancing deregulation policies must come along with appropriate fiscal measures (social protection spending) to compensate the losers of reforms or to accommodate any temporary negative effect on aggregate demand. This implies that the political determinants of MR and SE should be jointly analyzed to explain both the multiplicity of stable combinations of MR and SE empirically observed, and the strong political resistance often encountered in the implementation of structural reforms. The focus of this paper is a theoretical and empirical (using microdata from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)) investigation on the socio-economic, institutional and cultural factors which shape voters' preferences for MR and SE and determine the relative salience of the two political issues. Such an analysis should provide fundamental pieces of information to carry out a proper analysis of the political process to give account of the multiplicity of combinations of MR and SE empirically observed.     

Headlights on tobacco road to low birthweight outcomes

Low birthweight outcomes are associated with considerable social and economic costs, and therefore the possible determinants of low birthweight are of great interest. One such determinant which has received considerable attention is maternal smoking. From an economic perspective this is in part due to the possibility that smoking habits can be influenced through policy conduct. It is widely believed that maternal smoking reduces birthweight; however, the crucial difficulty in estimating such effects is the unobserved heterogeneity among mothers and the fact that estimation of conditional mean effects seems potentially inappropriate. We provide a unified view on the estimation of relationships between prenatal smoking and birthweight outcomes with quantile regression approaches for panel data and emphasize their differences. This paper contributes to the literature in three ways: (i) we focus not only on one technique, but provide evidence from several approaches and highlight a variety of statistical issues; (ii) the performance of the methods are thoroughly tested in a simulated environment, and recommendations are given on their appropriate use; (iii) our results are based on a detailed data set, which includes many relevant control variables for socio-economic, wealth, and personal characteristics.