Hayekian evolution reconsidered: a reply to Hodgson

This is a reply to Geoffrey Hodgson's Comment on an earlierpaper by Caldwell (Hodgson on Hayek: a critique). Though certainareas of agreement are noted, differences in interpretationconcerning Hayek's views on the Malthus–Darwin relationship,on cultural evolution, on the extent to which Hayek may be characterisedas an ontogenist, and on methodological individualism remain.     

Progress and the economy of nature

Progress is a difficult concept, but the phenomenon itself seems to be more than just an illusion. In this paper we consider how a bioeconomic perspective can help to clarify matters, especially when we compare aspects of organic evolution to technological progress. Beginning with the influence of Malthus upon Darwin, we see how the latter's ideas differ in important respects from those of other biologists and from those of social scientists and philosophers. Consideration of biologist's views about competition and the reasons for specialization suggests ways in which matters might be clarified by a more 'entrepreneurial' view of the relationships of organisms to the natural economy.     

Economists on Darwin's theory of social evolution and human behaviour

Abstract

This article analyses Darwin's image among economists with a specific focus on his theory of social evolution as presented in the Descent of Man (1871). We propose an analysis of the way and context in which economists refer to Darwin, mention his name and quote his writings. It then appears that Darwin is most of the time viewed as a biologist only, who never developed his own theory of social evolution. He is thus quoted as a biologist who either borrowed concepts from economists who developed a theory of social evolution, or laid the basis for biological theory of social evolution developed by others, Spencer, in particular. It is only recently that eventually the twofold dimensions—biological and social—of Darwin's general theory of evolution are considered together by bioeconomists.     

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.     

ON THE (POLITICAL) ORIGIN OF ‘CORPORATE GOVERNANCE’ SPECIES

Although economies, business practices and living standards have converged since WWII, corporate structures continue to differ among the advanced economies of the world. Looking at the diversity of corporate structures of large-sized firms around the world (and over time) would fascinate Charles Darwin. This work develops a critical review of the literature on political determinants of corporate governance through the Darwinian theory (including some Lamarckian aspects). As Darwin, in his work On the Origin of Species, explicates the diversity of species of tortoises, finches and iguanas of the Galapagos Islands, so Darwinism may contribute in understanding the origin and the persistence of corporate diversity. In particular, this paper takes into account politics-driven variations, their inheritances, and the subsequent selection of advantageous ‘corporate’ attributes.     

Some personal reflections on the history of Bioeconomics

This is a rather impressionist report of my recollections of the history of the bioeconomics field.     

基于实证研究的物流项目管理流程分析——以澳洲艾达铁路项目为例

现代项目管理应项目的需求而生,并在其传承的过程中得到了不断的发展。毫无疑问,项目管理对整个项目的成功起着举足轻重的作用,尤其对于大型基础设施建设项目而言,项目管理的执行效果往往直接影响着项目的最终绩效。作为澳洲在过去的50年里最大的运输基建项目,艾达铁路是通过良好的项目管理运作成功地完成了该项目生命周期之内各个环节的计划并最终实现项目整体成功的最佳范例。文章针对艾达铁路的项目管理进行了详细的分析和研究,以期能从艾达铁路成功的项目管理身上预见未来大型物流基建项目的发展趋势。     

The origin of utility: Sexual selection and conspicuous consumption

This paper proposes an explanation for the universal human desire for increasing consumption and the associated propensity to trade survival opportunity off conspicuous consumption. I argue that this desire was moulded in evolutionary times by a mechanism known to biologists as sexual selection, whereby an observable trait – conspicuous consumption in this case – is used by members of one sex to signal their unobservable characteristics valuable to members of the opposite sex. It then shows that the standard economics problem of utility maximisation is formally equivalent to the standard biology problem of the maximisation of individual fitness, the ability to pass genes to future generations, and thus establishes a rigorous theoretical foundation for including conspicuous consumption in the utility function.     

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.     

Altruism and Spite in a Selfish Gene Model of Endogenous Preferences

Economists and biologists have long grappled with the apparent contradiction of altruism in a naturally-selected world. Standard economic models are built upon an assumption of material self-interest where agents maximize individual outcomes without regard for the effects on others. This paper begins with a brief discussion of the evidence that human behavior deviates from the economic assumption. With the goal of more accurately describing human nature, the interpersonal components of preferences are derived in a genetic model. This model predicts a variety of behaviors that are considered paradoxical within the standard economic framework. The optimal attitude towards others is parameterized by the genetic relationship between individuals and by the population size. For interactions between ‘average’ individuals, the standard economic assumption is the limiting case of the genetic model as the population becomes arbitrarily large. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.