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.     

A baseline model of industry evolution

The paper analyses some general dynamic properties of industries characterized by heterogeneous firms and continuing stochastic entry.After a brief critical assessment of some significant drawbacks of recent contributions to modeling of stochastic industrial dynamics, we propose a novel analytical apparatus able to derive some generic properties of the underlying competition process combining persistent technological heterogeneity, differential growth of individual firms and turnover. The basic model, we suggest, is indeed applicable with proper modifications to a large class of evolutionary processes, well beyond industrial dynamics.JEL Classification: L11, O30, C60Support to this research by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria; the Fujitsu Research Institute for Advanced Information (FRI), Japan; the Italian National Research Council (CNR), the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR, prot. 2002132413 003) and the Free University of Bozen Bolzano, Italy, is gratefully acknowledged. Comments by Andrea Bassanini, Francesca Chiaromonte, Steven Klepper, Uwe Cantner, Drew Fudenberg and the anonymous referees helped in shaping the paper to its present form. Mariele Berté provided the computer simulations of the model. The usual caveats apply.Correspondence to: G. Dosi     

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.     

知识默会性对服务企业国际化进入模式及演化的影响

进入模式是一种组织和执行国际商务活动的制度安排.相对有形产品来说,服务更具有知识的特性,服务企业的国际化具有更明显的知识转移特征,知识的默会性对服务企业的进入模式选择产生了不可忽略的影响.从知识基础观出发,研究知识默会性对服务企业国际化进入模式的选择及其演化的影响,具有重要学术价值.     

演化经济学的两种系统观

演化经济学在系统处理方法上呈现出两种不同的主张,一种是以复杂适应系统理论为导向的演化建模分析方法,而另一种则强调多层级本体论和涌现观,并对复杂系统建模持抵制态度,尽管在反对主流经济学微观还原论这一点上两者取得了一致,但建立在相似性理论基础上的复杂系统建模更适合对复杂性存在的描述,而强调比较的、历史的和阐释的多层级本体论和涌现观的系统分析方法则更接近经验事实。     

新贸易保护主义的特征演变及其理论依据

新贸易保护主义是特指二战以来西方发达国家的各种贸易保护理论及其政策措施。20世纪90年代以来,新贸易保护主义原有的特征产生了一些变化,表现为更多地寻求多边贸易体系下的合法性保护;对进口保护的重新重视;从非关税措施的明显性保护转向隐蔽性保护;从单纯贸易政策转向经济、竞争政策,这些演变背后存在众多的理论支持,研究这些演变及其理论依据具有重要的理论与现实意义。     

农业科技演进中的“跨越”问题

实施农业科技“跨越”发展方略 ,尽快缩小与发达国家农业科技贡献率的差距 ,是提升我国农业和农村经济素质与效益的必由之路。“跨越”发展为赶超提供了机会与可能 ,只有具备了“跨越”产生的必要和充分条件时 ,这种机会与可能才会成为现实。我国已经具备这些条件 ,问题的关键是如何正确把握跨越式发展的战略思路及运行方案设计 ,以及如何进一步合理确定农业科技发展的优先领域和一步到位直接进入当代最先进农业技术行列的开发推广项目和范围。     

How technological innovation affects the structure of an industry: entrepreneurship evolution in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry since 1980

Challenges faced by the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, including reduced R&D productivity and the expiration of drugs that are high in demand, are recently being addressed through technological innovation. Such innovations are highly likely to change the structure and functioning of the industry. Since 2000, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have actively made strategic alliance, and technological innovations have changed the source of innovation from R&D to entrepreneurship within the industry. In this study, we identify the evolution of entrepreneurship and discuss the changes caused by technological advancements since 1980 by analysing patterns of exporting and acquiring technology data from Medtrack. Over difference period, biopharmaceutical firms have gained new knowledge and improved technology, and have implemented this newly acquired knowledge and innovation to introduce drugs to the market.     

企业生命周期各阶段的TMT认知演化

TMT认知是TMT决策行为的重要来源,作为影响TMT绩效的关键因素之一,近年来引起了学者们的广泛关注。以往有关TMT认知的研究多数关注于TMT认知与决策绩效、企业绩效的作用机制,是一系列对TMT认知静态层面的研究。然而,企业在不同的生命周期阶段,为适应内外部环境的变化, TMT需要不断调整战略决策,在此过程中, TMT认知也具有动态演化的过程。文章通过回顾TMT认知、企业生命周期理论及TMT生命周期的相关文献,突破了在TMT生命周期内研究TMT认知的局限,把TMT认知与企业生命周期的变化有机结合,构建了企业生命周期各阶段的TMT认知演化模型,探索TMT认知如何随着企业生命周期的变化而发生演变。该模型从理论角度客观地反映了TMT认知在企业生命周期各阶段的演化进程,为企业判断是否需要调整TMT认知以适应企业发展需要提供了参考,同时也为更好地解释TMT认知与TMT绩效、企业绩效的关系提供了新的思路。     

Disagreement over the emergence of private property rights: alternative meanings, alternative explanations

This paper is an exercise in the history of thought, which compares Austrian and neoclassical theories of the emergence of private property rights, and examines, in part, the extent to which Austrians can be said to offer a commonly-agreed upon explanation that parallels Carl Menger's exemplary story of the emergence of money. We address the sources of disagreement (and apparent conflict) among emergence theorists in both schools. We try to show that some of the disagreement hinges on an unclear meaning of the term “emergence,” which is resolvable, while other sources of disagreement are fundamental at the methodological level. JEL Code B25, E40, E53