Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-cx6qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-02T11:26:54.696Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The future of evolutionary economics: can we break out of the beachhead?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370, USA


This essay contemplates the possible futures of evolutionary economics in terms of two contrasting images. In the first, the primary research emphasis of the future will continue to be on the topics that have interested evolutionary economists in the past, such as technological change, business behavior, and the role of institutions. Research contributions in these focal areas and in some related areas are briefly characterized. In the second image, there is a breakout from this ‘beachhead’ and a broader conflict with the reigning paradigm, neoclassical economics. Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions provides a framework and stimulus for thinking about the latter case, and the 20th century paradigm conflict in physics provides a baseline for thinking about it. The core strengths of evolutionary economics in the paradigm conflict are noted, and the evolutionary role of intentionality is examined No definitive prediction about the future is offered.

Research Article
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Alchian, A. (1950), ‘Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 58: 211222.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962), ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in Nelson, R. (ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609625.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1974), The Limits of Organization, New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. and Hahn, F. H. (1971), General Competitive Analysis, San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Augier, M. and March, J. G. (2014), ‘The Flaring of Intellectual Outlines: An Organizational Interpretation of the Generation of Novelty in the RAND Corporation’, working paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bloom, N. and Reenen, J. V. (2010), ‘Why do Management Practices Differ Across Firms and Countries?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24: 203224.Google Scholar
Bower, J. L. and Gilbert, C. G. (eds.) (2005), From Resource Allocation to Strategy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2011), A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A. (1994), ‘Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 2456.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Lowenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2005), ‘Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience can Inform Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 43: 964.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1937), ‘The nature of the firm’, Economica N.S., 4: 386405.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. and Bacdayan, P. (1994), ‘Organizational Routines are Stored as Procedural Memory’, Organization Science, 5: 554568.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., and Winter, S. (1996), ‘Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5: 653698.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Debreu, G. (1959), Theory of Value, New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (2002 [1922]), Human Nature and Conduct, Minola, NY: Dover [Henry Holt].Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G. and Roventini, A. (2010), ‘Schumpeter Meeting Keynes: A Policy-friendly Model of Endogenous Growth and Business Cycles’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34 (9): 17481767.Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Llerena, P. and Labini, M. S. (2006), ‘The Relationships Between Science, Technologies and Their Industrial Exploitation: An Illustration Through the Myths and Realities of the So-called “European Paradox”’, Research Policy, 35: 14501464.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. and Nelson, R. R. (2010), ‘Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes’, in Hall, B. and Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of Innovation, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (2000), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003), ‘Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94118.Google Scholar
Felin, T. and Foss, N. J. (2011), ‘The Endogenous Origins of Experience, Routines and Organizational Capabilities: The Poverty of Stimulus’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7: 231256.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953). ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, The Methodology of Positive Economics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. (2004), ‘The Strategy Field From the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration’, Management Science, 50: 13091318.Google Scholar
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D. A., and Ocasio, W.. (2007), ‘Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School's Past, Present and Reconstructing for the Future’, Organization Science, 18: 523536.Google Scholar
Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1984), ‘Structural Inertia and Organizational Change’, American Sociological Review, 49: 149164.Google Scholar
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. I. (1997), ‘Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 716749.Google Scholar
Hazen, R. M. (2012), The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet, New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E. (ed.) (2003), The SMS Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Capabilities: Emergence, Development and Change, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (1994), ‘Optimisation and Evolution: Winter's Critique of Friedman Revisited’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18: 413430.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2004), The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M., Jarvinen, J., and Lamberg, J.-M. (2013), The Structure and Evolution of Evolutionary Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of the “Evolutionary” Literature in Management, Economics and Sociology. Proceedings of the 25th Annual EAEPE Conference, Paris.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. and Knudsen, T. (2010), Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G. (forthcoming), ‘Rethinking the financial crisis: Structuring our historical understanding of a predictable evolutionary disaster’, Business History Review.Google Scholar
Jacobides, M. G. and Winter, S. G. (2012), ‘Capabilities: Structure, Agency and Evolution’, Organization Science, 23 (5): 13651381.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. (1996), ‘Entry, Exit, Growth and Innovation Over the Product Life Cycle’, American Economic Review, 86: 562583.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. and Graddy, E. (1990), ‘The Evolution of Industries and the Determinants of Market Structure’, RAND Journal of Economics, 21: 2744.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. and Simons, K. L. (2000), ‘Dominance by Birthright: Entry of Prior Radio Producers and Competitive Ramifications in the U.S. Television Receiver Industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 21: 9971016.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, R. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, D. A. and Maxfield, R. R. (2005), ‘Ontological Uncertainty and Innovation’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15: 350.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2014), Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt, New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Lomi, A. and Larsen, E. R. (eds.) (2001), Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006), An Engine Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1962), ‘The Business Firm as a Political Coalition’, The Journal of Politics, 24: 662678.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. (1920), Principles of Economics, 8th edn., New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mazzoleni, R. and Nelson, R. R. (2013), ‘An Interpretive History of Challenges to Neoclassical Microeonomics and How They Have Fared’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 22: 14091451.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. (1989), More Heat Than Light, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1990), The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murmann, J. P. (2003), Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology and National Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1962), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.R. and Consoli, D. (2010), ‘An Evolutionary Theory of Household Consumption Behavior’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20: 665687.Google Scholar
Obstfeld, D. (2012), ‘Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done’, Organization Science, 23: 15711592.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962 [1958]), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Radner, R. (2001). ‘Bounded and Costly Rationality’, in Smelser, N. J. and Baites, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 12981303.Google Scholar
Raff, D. M. G. (2013), ‘How to Do Things With Time’, Enterprise and Society, 14: 435466.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R. (2005), Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stoelhorst, J. W. (2008), ‘Why is Management not an Evolutionary Science?’, Journal of Management Studies, 45: 10081023.Google Scholar
Syverson, C. (2011), ‘What Determines Productivity?’, Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (2): 326365.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science, 185: 11241131.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1898), ‘Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12: 373397.Google Scholar
Verspagen, B. and Werker, C. (2004), ‘Keith Pavit and the Invisible College of the Economics of Technology and Innovation’, Research Policy, 33: 14191431.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1964), ‘Economic ‘Natural Selection’ and the Theory of the Firm’, Yale Economic Essays, 4 (Spring 1964): 225272.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1971), ‘Satisficing, Selection and the Innovating Remnant’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85 (May 1971): 237261.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (1975), ‘Optimization and Evolution in the Theory of the Firm’, in Day, R. H. and Groves, T. (eds.), Adaptive Economic Models, Academic Press, pp. 73118.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2005), ‘Developing Evolutionary Theory for Economics and Management’, in Hitt, M. and Smith, K. G. (eds.), Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 510547.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2010), Testimony of Sidney G. Winter, Washington, DC: US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2012), ‘Capabilities: Their Origins and Ancestry’, Journal of Management Studies, 49 (8): 14021406.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013), ‘Habit, Deliberation and Action: Strengthening the Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27 (2): 120137.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2013). ‘Tacit Knowledge’, in Augier, M. and Teece, D. J. (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2014), ‘Optimization as Constraint: A Comment on Mazzoleni and Nelson’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 23 (2): 613631.Google Scholar
Witt, U. (2001), ‘Learning to Consume – A Theory of Wants and the Growth of Demand’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11: 2336.Google Scholar
Zbaracki, M. J. and Bergen, M. (2010), ‘When Truces Collapse: A Longitudinal Study of Price-Adjustment Routines’, Organization Science, 21 (5): 955972.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. (ed.) (2000), Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar