Evolutionary economics is a school ofeconomic thought that is inspired byevolutionary biology. Although not defined by a strict set of principles and uniting various approaches, it treatseconomic development as a process rather than anequilibrium and emphasizes change (qualitative,organisational, andstructural),innovation,complex interdependencies, self-evolving systems, andlimited rationality as the drivers of economic evolution.[1] The support for the evolutionary approach to economics in recent decades seems to have initially emerged as a criticism of themainstreamneoclassical economics,[2] but by the beginning of the 21st century it had become part of the economic mainstream itself.[3][4]
Evolutionary economics does not take the characteristics of either the objects of choice or of the decision-maker as fixed. Rather, it focuses on thenon-equilibrium processes that transform the economy from within and their implications, considering interdependencies and feedback.[1][5] The processes in turn emerge from the actions of diverse agents withbounded rationality who may learn from experience and interactions and whose differences contribute to the change.[1]
The idea of human society and the world in general as subject to evolution has been following mankind throughout its existence.Hesiod, anancient Greek poet thought to be the firstWestern written poet regarding himself as an individual,[6] described fiveAges of Man—theGolden Age, theSilver Age, theBronze Age, theHeroic Age, and theIron Age—following from divine existence to toil and misery. Modern scholars consider his works as one of the sources for early economic thought.[7][8][9] The concept is also present in theMetamorphoses byOvid, anancient Roman poet. HisFour Ages include technological progress: in the Golden Age, men did not know arts and craft, whereas by the Iron Age people had learnt and discoveredagriculture,architecture,mining,navigation, andnational boundaries, but had also become violent and greedy. This concept was not exclusive to the Greek and Roman civilizations (see, for instance,Yuga Cycles inHinduism, theThree Ages of Buddhism,Aztecs’Five Suns), but a common feature is the path towards misery and destruction, with technological advancements accompanied by moral degradation.
Medieval views on society, economics and politics (at least inEurope andPax Islamica) were influenced byreligious norms and traditions.Catholic andIslamic scholars debated on the moral appropriateness of certain economic practices, such asinterest.[10][11] The subject of changes was thought of in existential terms. For instance,Augustine of Hippo regardedtime as a phenomenon of the universe created byGod and a measure of change, whereas God exists outside of time.[12]
A major contribution to the views on the evolution of society wasLeviathan byThomas Hobbes. A human, according to Hobbes, is a matter in motion with one's own appetites and desires. Due to these numerous desires and thescarcity of resources, thenatural state of a human is awar of all against all:[13]
"In such condition, there is no place forIndustry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of thecommodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
In order to overcome this naturalanarchy, Hobbs saw it necessary to impose an ultimate restraint in the form of asovereign.
A landmark work in many senses,The Wealth of Nations byAdam Smith was also one to offer a description of economic development throughout the history of mankind—as well as insights into the nature of this development. InBook III (Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations), Smith constantly underlines the importance of the natural order of things, which economic improvements follow, and shows the feedback chain that allows economies to progress further, based on what has been achieved. This falls in line with the notion ofnatural rights shared by otherAge of Enlightenment thinkers, such asJohn Locke andMontesquieu.
A somewhat different view relates to the names of prominentsocialists of the 19th century, who viewed economic and political systems as products ofsocial evolution (in contrast to the notions ofnatural rights andmorality). In his bookWhat is Property?,Pierre-Joseph Proudhon noted:[14]
"Thus, in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached."
The approach was also employed byKarl Marx. In his view, over the course of history superior economic systems would replace inferior ones. Inferior systems were beset by internal contradictions and inefficiencies that made them impossible to survive in the long term. In Marx's scheme,feudalism was replaced bycapitalism, which would eventually be superseded by socialism.[15]
The term "evolutionary economics" might have been first coined byThorstein Veblen.[1] Veblen saw the need for taking into account cultural variation in his economic approach; no universal "human nature" could possibly be invoked to explain the variety of norms and behaviours that the new science ofanthropology showed to be the rule rather than an exception.[16] He also argued that social institutions are subject to selection process[17] and that economic science should embrace theDarwinian theory.[18][19][20][1]
Veblen's followers quickly abandoned his evolutionary legacy.[16][21] When they finally returned to the use of the term "evolutionary", they referred to development and change in general, without its Darwinian meaning.[1] Further researchers, such asJoseph Schumpeter, studiedentrepreneurship and innovation using this term, but not in the Darwinian sense.[2][22] Another prominent economist,Friedrich von Hayek, also employed the elements of the evolutionary approach, especially criticizing "the fatal conceit" of socialists who believed they could and should design a new society while disregarding human nature.[23] However, Hayek seemed to see the Darwin theory not as a revolution itself, but rather as an intermediary step in the line of evolutionary thinking.[1] There were other notable contributors to the evolutionary approach in economics, such asArmen Alchian, who argued that, faced withuncertainty andincomplete information, firms adapt to the environment instead of pursuingprofit maximization.[24]
The publication ofAn Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change byRichard R. Nelson andSidney G. Winter in 1982 marked a turning point in the field of evolutionary economics. Inspired by Alchian's work about the decision-making process of firms under uncertainty and the behavioural theory of the firm byRichard Cyert andJames March,[25][1] Nelson and Winter constructed a comprehensive evolutionary theory of business behavior using the concept ofnatural selection. In this framework, firms operate on the basis of organizational routines, which they evaluate and may change while functioning in a certain selection environment.[26] Since then, evolutionary economics, as noted byNicolai Foss, has been concerned with "the transformation of already existing structures and the emergence and possible spread of novelties."[27] Economies have been viewed as a complex system, a result of causal interactions (non-linear and chaotic) between different agents and entities with varied characteristics.[28] Instead of perfect information and rationality,Herbert Simon's concept ofbounded rationality[29] has become prevailing.
By the 1990s, as put byGeoffrey Hodgson,[1]
"it was possible to write of an international network or 'invisible college' of 'evolutionary economists' who, despite their analytical differences, were focusing on the problem of analyzing structural, technological, cultural and institutional change in economic systems... They were also united by their common dislike of the static and equilibrium approaches that dominated mainstream economics."
The role of evolutionary forces in the process of economic development over the course of human history has been further explored during the past decades. For example,Paul Rubin extensively described how apparent anomalies in decision-making, such as violations of the maximization principle, azero-sum way of thinking, or a dislike of competition andfree trade, may be a result of the human brain evolution.[30][31] Another concept Rubin and his colleagues viewed through the lenses of evolutionary analysis is the utility function, which may essentially be represented as the fitness evolutionary function.[32]
Elements of evolutionary approach have also appeared infinancial economics. Around 2004,Andrew Lo proposedthe adaptive market hypothesis—an extension of theefficient market hypothesis that treats financial market agents as "species" who exist in some environment (e.g., the number of competitors, profit opportunities) and behave accordingly.[33][34] This hypothesis does not deny that efficient financial market equilibria may exist, but it necessarily suggests that other states may emerge and evolve due to adaption and natural selection. Although quite recent, Lo's hypothesis has already been empirically tested with regard to a number of cases, such as the analysis of influence of religious holidays and political regimes on financial markets in Islamic countries[35] or the evolution ofBitcoin market.[36]
.jpg)
A considerable contribution to the understanding of economies as constantly evolving systems was provided byOded Galor and his colleagues. A pioneer of theunified growth theory, Galor depicts economic growth and development throughout human history as a continuous process driven by technological progress and the accumulation ofhuman capital as well as by the accumulation of those biological, social and cultural features that favour further development.
According to Galor's model, technological advancements in the early eras of the mankind (during theMalthusian epoch, with limited resources and near-subsistence levels of income) would lead to increases in the size of population, which in turn would further accelerate technological progress due to the production of new ideas and the increase in demand for them. At some point technological advancements would require higher levels ofeducation and generate the demand for educatedlabour force. After that, an economy wouldmove into a new phase characterised bydemographic transition (given that investment into less children, although more costly, would yield higher returns) and sustainedeconomic growth.[37] The process is accompanied by improvements inliving standards, the position of theworking class as necessary in order to complement technological progress (contrary to Marx and his followers, who predicted its further impoverishment), and the position of women, paving the way for furthersocial andgender equality improvements.[5][38] Interdependent, these elements facilitate each other, creating a unified process of growth and development, although the pace may be different for different societies.
InThe Journey of Humanity: The Origins of Wealth and Inequality (2022) Galor provides some statements that further solidify his evolutionary approach:[38]
“Consider… two large clans: the Quanty and the Qualy…Suppose that Quanty households bear on average four children each, of whom only two reach adulthood and find a reproductive partner. Meanwhile, Qualy households bear on average only two children each, because their budget does not allow them to invest in the education and health of additional offspring[sic!], and yet, thanks to the investment that they do make, both children not only reach adulthood and find a reproductive partner but they also find jobs in commercial and skill-intensive occupations… Now suppose the society in which they live is one where technological development boosts the demand for the services of blacksmiths, carpenters and other trades who can manufacture tools and more efficient machines. This increase in earning capacity would place the Qualy clan at a distinctevolutionary advantage. Within a generation or two, its families are likely to enjoy higher incomes and amass greater resources.”
The emergence of modern evolutionary economics was welcomed by the critics of the neoclassical mainstream.[4][1] However, the field, especially the approach byNelson andWinter, has also drawn critical attitude from otherheterodox economists. A year afterAn Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change was published,Philip Mirowski expressed his doubts that this framework represented genuine evolutionary economics research (i.e., in the vein of Veblen) and not just a variant of neoclassical methodology, especially since the authors admitted their framework could include neoclassical orthodoxy.[39] Some Veblenianinstitutionalists claim this framework is only a "protective modification of the neoclassical economics and is antithetical to Veblen's evolutionary economics."[40] Another possible shortcoming (recognized by the proponents of modern evolutionary economics) is that the field is heterogenous, with no convergence on an integrated approach.[1]
Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach inpsychology that examines cognition and behaviour from a modern evolutionary perspective.[41][42] It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits. Economic concepts can also be viewed through these lenses, as demonstrated byPaul Rubin, among others.[30][31][32]
Evolutionary game theory is the application ofgame theory to evolving populations in biology. It defines a framework of contests,strategies, and analytics into which Darwinian competition can be modelled. It originated in 1973 withJohn Maynard Smith andGeorge R. Price's formalisation of contests, analysed as strategies, and the mathematical criteria that can be used to predict the results of competing strategies.[43]
Evolutionary game theory has helped to explain the basis ofaltruistic behaviours in Darwinian evolution. It has in turn become of interest to sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and economists.[44]
| Basic concepts |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policies | |||||
| Models | |||||
| Related fields | |||||
| Schools |
| ||||
| Notablemacroeconomists | |||||
| Critique | |||||
| See also | |||||
| Supply and demand | |
|---|---|
| Markets andFirms | |
| Decision theory andbehavioural economics | |
| Welfare economics | |
| Econometrics andmathematical economics | |
| Other subfields | |
| See also | |
