IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/polgne/358683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Kwestie metodologiczne podejścia ewolucyjnego w ekonomii

Author

Listed:
  • Glapiński, Adam

Abstract

The article aims to identify and analyze some basic methodological problems related to a rapidly developing approach to economics known as evolutionary economics. The author examines how this approach is likely to evolve in the future and what research potential it holds for modern economics. According to the author, evolutionary economics is fraught with a number of methodological difficulties. He describes evolutionary economics as classically endogenous in nature. Evolutionary economics seeks to explain processes related to the internal transformation of knowledge about decision-making, production methods, organizational forms of business, consumer behavior and business psychology. In the neoclassical approach, all these parameters are treated as constant, while in evolutionary economics they are subject to analysis, proceeding from the assumption that they change as a result of evolutionary processes, the author says. The mechanism of this evolution is the main focus of evolutionary economics. Therefore, when analyzing economic systems, evolutionary economists focus their attention on changes and new elements, Glapiński says. The main methodological difficulty related to defining the research focus of evolutionary economics is that this approach needs to be set apart from other scientific disciplines studying economic and evolutionary processes, such as sociology, social anthropology, economic history, institutional economics, social psychology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral biology, and evolutionary biology. Evolutionary economics is concerned with the dynamics of past and present processes as well as with the organization and functioning of economies, in particular the origin and functioning of the Western model of capitalism. Evolutionary economists seek to explain economic events by making references to past events and finding causal relationships applying to behaviors as well as the transformation of behaviors and institutions. Evolutionary economists make assumptions about economic factors and actors, including those about irreversible and spontaneous changes in behavior. These assumptions mean that evolutionary economics has a purely empirical orientation, the author says, and, consequently, its main weakness is that it is difficult to derive simple mathematical models from these assumptions. This breeds a number of further methodological problems. One of them is that evolutionary economics has low capacity for formulating falsified hypotheses, which reduces its credibility and status, according to Glapiński – at least under the widely followed Popperian interpretation of the “scientificality” of theories (Austrian-born British philosopher and economist Karl Popper is known for his attempt to repudiate the classical observationalist/inductivist form of the scientific method in favor of empirical falsification). Another reason for the criticism against evolutionary economics is that evolutionary theories are eclectic in nature, Glapiński says. This stems from the fact that economic evolution is related to evolutionary processes lying outside the economic system, which prompts attempts by economists to enter “neighboring” disciplines. Yet another weakness results from the basically empiricist and historicist nature of research in evolutionary economics, the author says, which often leads to a situation in which there is no clear distinction between economic theory and economic/business history. These methodological weaknesses and theoretical difficulties explain why a number of competitive theoretical syntheses have emerged over the last century, Glapiński says. Over the past decade or so, evolutionary economics has departed from the kind of synthesis pursued by the precursors of evolutionism, according to the author. He concludes that evolutionary economics has good prospects for development resulting from the dynamic development of detailed studies of evolutionary processes in various areas of industry, services and consumption as well as from research into the development of export markets and consumer behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Glapiński, Adam, 2013. "Kwestie metodologiczne podejścia ewolucyjnego w ekonomii," Gospodarka Narodowa-The Polish Journal of Economics, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie / SGH Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 2013(5-6), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:polgne:358683
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.358683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/358683/files/Glapi%C5%84ski.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.358683?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich Witt, 2008. "What is specific about evolutionary economics?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 547-575, October.
    2. Ulrich Witt (ed.), 2008. "Recent Developments in Evolutionary Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2750, December.
    3. Geoffrey M. Hodgson & Warren J. Samuels & Marc R. Tool (ed.), 1994. "The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 228, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam Glapiński, 2013. "Kwestie metodologiczne podejścia ewolucyjnego w ekonomii," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 5-6, pages 5-17.
    2. Duarte N. Leite & Sandra T. Silva & Oscar Afonso, 2014. "Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 491-515, July.
    3. Wilson, David Sloan & Gowdy, John M., 2013. "Evolution as a general theoretical framework for economics and public policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 3-10.
    4. Muhamed Kudic & Mariia Shkolnykova, 2020. "From biotech to bioeconomy: New empirical evidence on the technological transition to plant-based bioeconomy based on patent data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2002, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    5. Kaus, Wolfhard, 2013. "Beyond Engel's law - A cross-country analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 118-134.
    6. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Tae-Hee Jo, 2013. "Saving Private Business Enterprises," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 447-467, April.
    8. A.Allan Schmid, 2004. "The Spartan School Of Institutional Economics At Michigan State University," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Wisconsin "Government and Business" and the History of Heterodox Economic Thought, pages 207-243, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    9. Daniel Dufourt, 1995. "Information, incertitude et comportements : pour une réévaluation des transactions relatives à l'information dans le contexte d'une économie de l'ignorance," Post-Print halshs-00432183, HAL.
    10. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Gordon Burt, 1997. "Cultural Convergence in Historical Cultural Space-Time," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(4), pages 291-305, December.
    12. Saeed Parto, 2003. "Economic Activity and Institutions," Others 0303001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Kudic, Muhamed & Pyka, Andreas & Günther, Jutta, 2012. "Determinants of Evolutionary Change Processes in Innovation Networks – Empirical Evidence from the German Laser Industry," IWH Discussion Papers 7/2012, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    14. Mauricio G. Villena & Marcelo J. Villena, 2004. "Evolutionary Game Theory and Thorstein Veblen’s Evolutionary Economics: Is EGT Veblenian?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 585-610, September.
    15. Mistreanu (Carstea) Laura Maria, 2009. "Education and „The New Institutionalism” – The Paradigm of Economic Development within the Context of European Integration," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 1(1), pages 69-76, September.
    16. Arturo Hermann, 2016. "The Studies in Social Economics of Léon Walras and his far-reaching critique of laissez faire," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 59-76.
    17. Pirozzi Maria Grazia & Agliata Francesco & Tuccillo Danilo & Pirozzi Francesco, 2021. "Defining the Integrated Performance Measurement Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises: An Advanced Model," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(12), pages 203-203, July.
    18. Nathalie Lazaric & Pasquale Tridico & Sebastiano Fadda, 2020. "Governing structural changes and sustainability through (new) institutions and organizations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1267-1273, November.
    19. Cantner, Uwe & Rake, Bastian, 2014. "International research networks in pharmaceuticals: Structure and dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 333-348.
    20. Brousseau, Eric & Garrouste, Pierre & Raynaud, Emmanuel, 2011. "Institutional changes: Alternative theories and consequences for institutional design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1-2), pages 3-19, June.
    21. Mariia Shkolnykova & Muhamed Kudic, 2022. "Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—empirical evidence from German biotechnology," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1157-1185, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:polgne:358683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irsghpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.