Economics and biology have much in common in terms of their intellectual heritage and in the nature of their subject matter. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that many current controversies in biology have great relevance for economic theory. Among these is the theory of “punctuated equilibria” in evolutionary theory. This article draws on this controversy in biology in order to examine some of the issues surrounding the notion, implicit in neoclassical growth theory, that economic change occurs with the accumulation of characteristics acquired by natural selection at the margin. Implications of non-marginalist change include the following: (1) if selection is not entirely due to gradual changes at the margin, then events such as sudden turbulence must be given an important role in a general theory of economic change, and (2) once we leave the knife’s edge of marginal optimization there is more latitude in what constitutes “fitness” than the neoclassical paradigm allows. The article then presents some evidence for the existence of punctuations in economic history and ends with a discussion of some of the elements a general theory of economic change should include.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AwanAkhtar (1986). “Marshallian and Schumpeterian Theories of Economic Evolution: Gradualism Versus Punctualism,”Atlantic Economic journal, 14, (December): 37–49.
2.
BeckerG. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press.
3.
BouldingK. (1950). A Reconstruction of Economics, New York: Wiley.
4.
BoyesW.J.FaithR.L. (1986). “Some Effects of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978,”Journal of Law and Economics, 29, (April: 139–149.
5.
ColpR. Jr. (1982). “The Myth of the Darwin-Marx Letter.”History of Political Economy, 14, 461–82.
6.
DuggerW.M. (1979). “Methodological Differences Between Institutional and Neoclassical Economics,”Journal of Economic Issues, 13, (December): 899–910.
7.
EldredgeN.GouldS.J. (1972). “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” in Models in Paleobiology, ed. SchopfT.J.M., San Fransico: Freeman, Cooper.
8.
FisherR.A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9.
Friedman,Milton. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
10.
Georgescu-RoegenN. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press.
11.
GlassburnerB. (1955). “Alfred Marshall on Economic History and Historical Development,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, (November): 577–595.
12.
GleickJ. (1987). Chaos. New York: Viking Press.
13.
GouldS.J.LewontinR.C. (1979). “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 207, 147–64.
14.
GowdyJ.M. (1983). “Biological Analogies in Economics: A Comment.”Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 5, (Summer): 676–678.
15.
GowdyJ.M. (1985). “Evolutionary Theory and Economic Theory: Some Methodological Issues.”Review of Social Economy, 43, (December): 316–324.
16.
GowdyJ.M. (1987). “Bioeconomics: Social Economy Versus the Chicago School,”International Journal of Social Economics, 14, 32–42.
17.
GrayH. Peter (1986). “Towards a Theory of Adjustment Policy.”Memeo.
18.
HeinerR. (1983). “The Origin of Predictable Behavior.”American Economic Review, 73, (September): 560–595.
19.
HirshleiferJ. (1977). “Economics From a Biological Viewpoint.”The Journal of Law and Economics, 20, (April): 1–52.
20.
HuxleyT.H. (1986). Darwinia. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
21.
JablonskiD. (1986). “Background and Mass Extinctions: The Alteration of Macroeconomic Regimes,”Science, 231, (January10): 129–133.
22.
KeynesJ.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: MacMillan Press.
