Suchergebnisse

"Economics and Biology" is a collection of key essays on the relationship between economics and biology. As the limitations of the mechanistic metaphor in economics are increasingly recognized, this volume explores the potential for the use of evolutionary and other ideas from the science of biology. Topics covered include evaluations of mechanistic and biological analogies in economics in the Darwinian revolution, the use of biology in Alfred Marshall's economics, the concepts of optimisation and rationality in an evolutionary context and the inspirations that biology may offer for modern economics.

AbstractIn his article in this journal, Michael Jacobs lists the multiple overlapping crises which now affect the world. These include climate change and rising economic inequality. This comment endorses his emphasis on institutions and his call for richer institutional analyses to help develop viable policies to deal with these problems. But, on the other hand, this comment criticises his use of the term 'neoliberalism' to identify a major source of our current difficulties. Many 'neoliberals' are said to favour market solutions. But the term has become so vague that it is linked to not only economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but also to others who accept some markets in a mixed economy. Opposition to 'neoliberalism' then involves a rejection of market reforms in economies such as China and of mixed economies more generally. The word now means so many different things that it has becomes unusable.

AbstractMany social scientists still resist Darwinian insights. A possible reason for this is a fear of being associated with Social Darwinism. This article updates a 2002 search for appearances of Social Darwinism in articles and reviews on the JSTOR database. This database has since increased substantially in size, and it now includes far more publications in languages other than English. Use of the term Social Darwinism was rare before the 1940s. Talcott Parsons used it in 1932 to criticise the analytic use of the core Darwinian concepts in social science. Subsequently, and for the first time, Herbert Spencer and Willam Graham Sumner were described as Social Darwinists. This led to a major change of meaning of the term, where it was associated more, but not entirely, with free market individualism. With this reconstructed meaning, a 1944 bestselling book by Richard Hofstadter provoked an explosion of usage of the term in postwar years. The continuing use of the term is partly ideologically motivated and has served to deter consideration of Darwinian ideas in social science.

AbstractExtracts from an important article by the American psychologist, philosopher and social scientist Donald T. Campbell are reproduced here, with an introduction underlining the importance of his argument for today. Campbell identified disciplinary boundaries as enablers of specialization but often barriers to scientific innovation and shared knowledge. But instead of unbounded interdisciplinarity, Campbell argued for focused specialisms that cross disciplinary boundaries. This argument is particularly relevant for the development of institutional research in the future.

AbstractWith its eighteenth annual volume, theJournal of Institutional Economics(JOIE) has come of age. This editorial report looks at the growth of the journal, summarises some of its achievements, reviews progress in addressing diversity and gender balance, outlines current editorial policy, and considers some further issues that are important for the future.

AbstractThis is a review of Joel Mokyr's fascinating book entitledA Culture of Growth.The work is summarized, noting its focus on Darwin-style evolutionary explanations of cultural change. But Mokyr's emphasis on cultural entrepreneurs and positive feedbacks in the procreation of ideas is insufficient to explain the origins of modern economic growth. Too much explanatory weight is placed on too few extraordinary people. It is argued that Mokyr's analysis should be extended, to bring the evolution of institutions, as well as the evolution of culture, into the picture at an additional level. The role of inter-state rivalry and exogenous shocks has also to be underlined. This kind of analysis can be developed within the framework of generalized Darwinism, which Mokyr himself adopts. This is a major and highly stimulating book.