Veblen’s evolutionary methodology and its implications for heterodox economics in the calculable future

被引:0
作者
Jo T.-H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Economics and Finance Department, State University of New York—Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, 14222, NY
来源
Review of Evolutionary Political Economy | 2021年 / 2卷 / 2期
关键词
B15; B25; B50; Business enterprise; D21; Evolution; Heterodox economics; Thorstein Veblen;
D O I
10.1007/s43253-020-00024-1
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Critics have repeatedly claimed that heterodox economics has failed. They blame heterodox economists for their own failure. I subject this claim to critical examination from the perspective of Veblen’s evolutionary methodology. Veblen’s theory of the business enterprise will be used as an example, which exemplifies the case that a ‘blasphemous’ theory is ignored and marginalized even though it provides rich and perspicacious insights into the evolution of economy and society. It is also argued that social science does not follow the biological principle of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. What survives does not necessarily mean the fittest in the social realm. The history of science is replete with paradoxical incidents that an incoherent, irrelevant, or even wrong theory becomes dominant and widely accepted because it is one that serves the vested interests in academia and society. Economics is no exception. © European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy 2020.
引用
收藏
页码:277 / 295
页数:18
相关论文
共 83 条
  • [1] Anderson K.L., The unity of Veblen’s theoretical system, Q J Econ, 47, 4, pp. 598-626, (1933)
  • [2] Argyrous G., Sethi R., The theory of evolution and the evolution of theory: Veblen’s methodology in contemporary perspective, Camb J Econ, 20, 4, pp. 475-495, (1996)
  • [3] Becker M.C., Knudsen T., Nelson and Winter revisited, Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, pp. 243-255, (2012)
  • [4] Boulding K., Review of an evolutionary theory of economic change by, Am J Agr Econ, 66, 4, pp. 535-536, (1984)
  • [5] Colander D., Moving beyond the rhetoric of pluralism: Suggestions for an inside the mainstream heterodoxy, Economic Pluralism, pp. 36-47, (2010)
  • [6] Colander D., Holt R.P.F., Rosser J.B., The changing face of mainstream economics, Rev Polit Econ, 16, 4, pp. 485-499, (2004)
  • [7] Colander D., Holt R.P.F., Rosser J.B., Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics, J Post Keynes Econ, 30, 2, pp. 303-312, (2007)
  • [8] Coyle D., The soulful science: what economists really do and shy it matters, (2007)
  • [9] Dugger W.M., The new institutionalism: new but not institutionalist, J Econ Issues, 24, 2, pp. 423-431, (1990)
  • [10] Dugger W.M., Douglass C. North’s new institutionalism, J Econ Issues, 29, 2, pp. 453-458, (1995)