Can Darwinism be “Generalized” and of what use would this be?

Abstract

It has been suggested that, by generalizing Darwinian principles, a common foundation can be derived for all scientific disciplines dealing with evolutionary processes, especially for evolutionary economics. In this paper we show, however, that the principles of such a "Generalized Darwinism" are not those that in the development of evolutionary biology have been crucial for distinguishing Darwinian from non-Darwinian approaches and, hence, cannot be considered genuinely Darwinian. Moreover, we wonder how "Generalized Darwinism" can be made fruitful for evolutionary economics given that its principles are but an abstract hull that does not suffice to explain actual evolutionary processes in the economy. To that end specific hypotheses are required which neither follow from, nor are necessarily compatible with, the suggested abstract principles. Accordingly, we find little evidence in the literature for the claim that Generalized Darwinism can enhance the explanatory power of an evolutionary approach to economics.

The Emergence of the ERP Software Market between Product Innovation and Market Shaping

“…This stream of research and its supporters claim to provide an explanation to the evolution of any complex system [15]. This approach can be problematic for the case of evolutionary economics, since no proof is delivered so far that a blind analogy building from evolutionary biology would be sufficient to explain economic phenomena, and any approach to find an equivalent of variation, selection and inheritance can also lead to dubious findings, as Levit et al put forward [16]: "The interpretation of reality can be seriously biased by selectively recognizing only those elements that seem to fit the logic of the chosen principles and ignoring all others, or by constructing disciplinary correlates that actually misrepresent the economic conditions." (p. 557).…”

“…(p. 557). Levit et al [16] advises the formulation of specific hypotheses on a bottom-down level (instead of the top-down approach of universal Darwinism) in order to explain the efforts of human beings in shaping markets and their practices within the evolution in an economy.…”

The coordination aspect of institutions in the context of an evolutionary approach to economic dynamics

“…Also, it is emphasized that the Generalization of Darwinism in economics has shown little interest in the empirical confirmation of its own understanding of evolutionary dynamics (Levit et al, 2011).…”

“…Takođe, iznosi se stav da je generalizacija darvinizma u ekonomskoj nauci pokazala malo interesovanja za empirijsku potvrdu sopstvenog shvatanja evolucione dinamike (Levit et al, 2011).…”

Does classical liberalism imply an evolutionary approach to policy-making?

“…It can, as its proponents state, only serve as a meta-theory, and in order to generate interesting and empirically refutable hypotheses, it needs to be amended with detailed theories about variation, selection and replication that are field-specific and offer particular explanations for the actual objects that are studied (Hodgson and Knudsen 2006). Indeed, in criticizing Generalized Darwinism, Levit et al (2011) argue that it is precisely such research into the particular conditions of specific evolutionary processes that has helped evolutionary theory progress in the past, while little or no additional explanatory power is to be gained from generalizations. And not only the explanatory power is lacking, but also the ability to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary processes in the social and economic realm.…”