IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v10y2014i04p645-664_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The future of evolutionary economics: why the modalities of explanation matter

Author

Listed:
  • WITT, ULRICH

Abstract

Far from inspiring that paradigmatic shift in economics that was envisioned by its early proponents, ‘evolutionary’ economics today represents a patchwork of unconnected theories and topics. In other disciplines, evolutionary thinking has induced a paradigm shift, resulting from the adoption of the Darwinian paradigm extended by hypotheses about cultural evolution. Concerning economics, however, even a preliminary discourse on the potential of this paradigm for future theorizing remains controversial. The present paper therefore focuses on the methodological implications of the paradigm. It is shown that hitherto unnoticed common ground can be identified underlying the diversity of approaches to evolutionary economics. It rests in the modalities of causal explanations germane to the Darwinian paradigm. Understanding these modalities also makes it possible to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary research irrespective of the specific theories and topics concerned. The argument is illustrated for the exemplary case of institutional economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Witt, Ulrich, 2014. "The future of evolutionary economics: why the modalities of explanation matter," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 645-664, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:10:y:2014:i:04:p:645-664_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137414000253/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudius Graebner-Radkowitsch, 2022. "Elements of an evolutionary approach to comparative economic studies: complexity, systemism, and path dependent development," ICAE Working Papers 134, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    2. Michael Peneder, 2017. "Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(3), pages 829-858.
    3. Angela Ambrosino & Magda Fontana & Anna Azzurra Gigante, 2018. "Shifting Boundaries In Economics: The Institutional Cognitive Strand And The Future Of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 767-791, July.
    4. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    5. Verónica Robert & Gabriel Yoguel & Octavio Lerena, 2017. "The ontology of complexity and the neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary theory of economic change," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 761-793, September.
    6. Terence C. Burnham, 2016. "Economics and evolutionary mismatch: humans in novel settings do not maximize," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 195-209, October.
    7. Erkan Gurpinar & Altug Yalcintas, 2015. "One Long Argument in Economics: Explaining Intellectual Inertia in terms of Evolutionary Ontology," STOREPapers 2_2015, Associazione Italiana per la Storia dell'Economia Politica - StorEP.
    8. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "The manifesto of post-institutionalism: institutional complexity research agenda," MPRA Paper 97662, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Olivier Brette & Nathalie Lazaric & Victor Vieira da Silva, 2017. "Habit, decision making, and rationality : comparing Veblen and early Herbert Simon," Post-Print halshs-01310305, HAL.
    10. Frolov, Daniil, 2018. "Постинституционализм: За Пределами Институционального Мейнстрима [Post-institutionalism: Beyond the Institutional Mainstream]," MPRA Paper 90287, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Carina Altreiter & Claudius Graebner & Stephan Puehringer & Ana Rogojanu & Georg Wolfmayr, 2020. "Theorizing competition: an interdisciplinary framework," ICAE Working Papers 120, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    12. Frolov, Daniil, 2019. "Постинституционализм: Программа Исследований За Пределами Институционального Мейнстрима [Post-institutionalism: research program beyond the institutional mainstream]," MPRA Paper 92328, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jinsec:v:10:y:2014:i:04:p:645-664_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    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.