IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v37y2013i1p209-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transmutability, generalised Darwinism and the limits to conceptual integration

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Brown

Abstract

This article explores the limits to conceptual integration between evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience and economics. The new learning in the natural sciences supplies material to update and enrich the microfoundations of institutional economics—specifically, the instinct–habit psychology. The framing of social reality with evolutionary concepts is, however, misguided in important respects. Metaphorical modelling is the transfer of concepts developed for the understanding of one domain to another, ontological distinct domain. The argument is made that the generalisation of Darwinian principles to the phenomena of institutional persistence and change is theorising by metaphor, because there are crucial ontological differences separating the natural and social domains. Social reality has the property of transmutability—meaning the social environment, unlike the natural domain, is changeable by human agency. This article endeavours to explain how the generalisation of the natural selection principle evokes a fallacious conception of institutional reality. The idea that 'fitness' in the social/economic sphere is a matter of purposive adaptation by agents to exogenous conditions is misleading, because real success in business or politics is transformative and is achieved by catalysing and maintaining advantageous shifts of widely prevalent habits of thought and behaviour. Copyright , OUP.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Brown, 2013. "Transmutability, generalised Darwinism and the limits to conceptual integration," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 209-225.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:37:y:2013:i:1:p:209-225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bes016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. George Liagouras, 2016. "From Heterodox Political Economy to Generalized Darwinism," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 48(3), pages 467-484, September.
    2. Ambrosino, Angela & Fontana, Magda & Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2015. "Shifting Boundaries in Economics: the Institutional Cognitive Strand," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201544, University of Turin.
    3. Naoise McDonagh, 2021. "The evolution of bank bailout policy: two centuries of variation, selection and retention," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 1065-1088, July.
    4. Steve Fleetwood, 2021. "A definition of habit for socio-economics," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 79(2), pages 131-165, April.

    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:oup:cambje:v:37:y:2013:i:1:p:209-225. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.