Expanding the Dialogue between Institutional Economics and Contemporary Evolutionary Economics: Veblen's Methodology as a Framework

By Brette, Olivier | Journal of Economic Issues, June 2006 | Go to article overview

Expanding the Dialogue between Institutional Economics and Contemporary Evolutionary Economics: Veblen's Methodology as a Framework


Brette, Olivier, Journal of Economic Issues


This paper addresses an enduring paradox in institutional and evolutionary economics since the 1970s: the exchanges between institutional economics (hereafter IE) and contemporary evolutionary economics (hereafter CEE) which has developed following the seminal works of Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter (1974; 1982) have been rather limited until now) This is paradoxical since we could expect the literature of these two schools of thought to be very closely linked. Needless to mention here, the main contemporary organization of institutional economists is precisely named the Association for Evolutionary Economics, in reference notably to the leading figure and inspiration of IE, Thorstein Veblen, and his famous appeal for an "evolutionary economics." One can thus wonder why there have been so few exchanges between IE and CEE until now.

The aim of this paper is to account for the nature of the relationships between IE and CEE, to try to explain the paradox previously emphasized, and to outline a framework allowing the expansion of a fruitful dialogue between the two. The framework I suggest rests on a reappraisal of Veblen's evolutionary economics through contemporary concerns and concepts (Brette 2004). It is in line with Geoffrey Hodgson's (2004) plea to "begin the reconstruction of institutional economics" on the foundations of "Veblenian institutionalism." I will thus show that Veblen's methodology could provide an appropriate framework for a convergence between IE and CEE, which could benefit both. Indeed, not only do the methodological bases for a dialogue between Veblenian IE and CEE exist but significant complementarities could be exploited all the more fruitfully as the two approaches diverge appreciably regarding their respective level of analysis.

An Interpretation of the Relationships between IE and CEE

During the last decades, evolutionary theses have experienced a sharp revival in economics. This resurgence has been significantly boosted by An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, the book Nelson and Winter published in 1982. From the beginning, contemporary evolutionary economists, namely the economists whose works lie within the perspective sketched by Nelson and Winter, have considered Joseph Schumpeter as their main inspiration. This heritage was claimed early by Nelson and Winter (1974) themselves and strongly reasserted in their classic book in which they described their approach as "neo-Schumpeterian" (1982, 39). On the contrary, contemporary evolutionary economists have widely neglected the contribution of the founders of institutionalism to the elaboration of an evolutionary economics. Admittedly, Nelson and Winter (1982, 38) alluded to some institutionalist economists like John Maurice Clark and John Kenneth Galbraith. Moreover, one can find the following footnote in their book's conclusion: "On questions of evolution in the larger system, we converge substantially with the older tradition of evolutionary thinking in economics that has had institutional evolution as its principal concern--a tradition maintained today by the Association for Evolutionary Economics and its journal, The Journal of Economic Issues" (404). However, the authors did not develop this remark. Furthermore and meaningfully, they did not even mention Veblen among the "allies and antecedents of evolutionary theory" (1982, 33-45). Obviously, this omission is most surprising as Veblen was one of the first who wanted economics to be turned into an "evolutionary science" ([1919] 1990, 56-81).

Many causes can explain this neglect and more generally the little interest that CEE has actually shown in IE, until recently at least. The previous quotation of Nelson and Winter suggests that an important reason may have been a difference in the respective subject matter of CEE and IE. However, this sole explanation is far from being satisfying, since it precluded neither the development of methodological debates nor that of synergies between the two schools of thought, rather the opposite. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Expanding the Dialogue between Institutional Economics and Contemporary Evolutionary Economics: Veblen's Methodology as a Framework
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.