Criticism
Why is criticism of Evolutionary Economics so passionate ?
Passion and fervour abound as economists, scientists, political analysts and religious believers debate the idea of universal Darwinism - there is no comfortable consensus - even Darwin's fundamental theory of biological evolution is still rejected by many and then, for most, it is a leap too far to apply the process to human decision making.
Criticisms of evolutionary economics as the science of choice can be grouped into broad categories -
evolutionary economics is a descriptive fantasy and not an orthodox predictive mathematical science (reminiscent of the ancient v. modern debate during the scientific revolution)
rational hard nosed economic theory has little to contribute to normative ethical decisions which should dominate policy choice (reminiscent of the faith v. reason debate which Thomas Aquinas addressed)
the process of evolution leads to a deterministic future which ignores free will, economic choice and cultural learning and the inheritance of acquired characteristics (this debate involves the application of linear v. non-linear mathematics)
human behavioural choice is mediated by rational purposeful
intentional plans and
intelligent designs which are not part of the evolutionary process (this is the crux of the
debate Cartesian dualism
v. neural Darwinism or calculation v. trial & error)
Evolutionary economics is a very different way of thinking, leading to a better understanding of the way things work, but it cannot and doesn't claim to -
predict an unknowable future
provide unknowable 'causes' of the immense complexity of economic growth.
Before 1859 there was no evolutionary theory but since Darwin there has been a constant stream of science that has provided supporting evidence - here are just a few breakthroughs which seem to be important to a golden thread of understanding -
2nd Law of Thermodynamics & directional change
Adam Smith & invisible hands
Lyell & geological processes
Darwin & natural selection
Mendel & genetic inheritance
Crick and Watson & DNA
Hamilton & inclusive fitness
Maynard Smith & evolutionarily stable strategies
Trivers & reciprocal altruism
Axelrod & positive sum games
Sanger & molecular biology
Edelman & adaptive immune systems
Dawkins & universal Darwinism
Pinker & language, culture and the brain
Santa Fe & computer simulations, non-linear mathematics and the phenomena of 'emergence'
Geoffrey Hodgson & from analogy to ontology ...
but all this doesn't 'prove' anything ...
Mary Midgley has reminded us that misunderstanding good evolutionary biology results in bad policy -
the 'naturalistic fallacy', what is natural is not necessarily good
facts about what 'is' cannot tell us what 'ought' to be
nature is not always 'red in tooth and claw'
evolution is not an 'escalator to some Panglossian pinnacle'
David Hume and Karl Popper also pointed out 'the problem of induction' - just because you've seen 1000 white swans it doesn't mean the next one won't be black ...
Edith Penrose pinpointed the uncomfortable issue that Darwin appeared to exclude purposeful behaviour and inheritance of acquired characteristics, 'human intentionality' seemed to be an essential part of all economic and social theory.
Nevertheless the evidence relentlessly mounts ...
... evolutionary explanations for economic growth seem more and more
plausible. Economic activity in institutions seems to become more complex and
more responsive, more and
more adapted to changing environments. Patterns of statistical uniformity
emerge from around the world and scientific method suggests the process is
not random - alternative, less responsive, wealth creation strategies died
out.
Science is a spectacular method for better understanding the evidence we observe. Successful practical economic policy is underpinned by science - observed phenomena are explained by mathematical theory, with testable hypotheses, which can be validated by repeatable experiments and reviewed by peers not by elites. These robust empirical elements are absent in alternative a priori knowledge acquisition systems and learning is faster as experimental evidence is immediately available for analysis ...
Criticisms of economic science as 'only a theory', based on 'unrealistic assumptions' and with 'no moral foundation' becomes unsustainable if the consequences of evolutionary economic behavioural strategies is a drop in infant mortality?
Evolutionary economic concepts, inheritance with modification & differential survival, are not difficult but the penny has to drop.
The giraffe's long neck has no meaningful 'cause' it emerges from the death of short necked giraffes. And there is no known physical way that deliberate stretching, purposeful entreaty, intentional instruction nor planned design by the most intelligent can make it thus.
Read that last paragraph again if you really want to
understand evolutionary economics ...
... and grasp the Darwinian concept of survival emerging from the
elimination of inferior alternatives - nothing supernatural, nothing
unethical, nothing pre-determined, nothing anthropocentric, nothing about
divining future success ... the Darwinian selection process is natural,
cooperative, unpredictable, universal and blind ...
The great achievement of evolutionary economics has been to identify a precise process by which imperfect competitive global markets in 'know how' can efficiently and equitably ameliorate some individual problems without harming others through synergies. That process is adaptation, just as short necked giraffes died out so too do uneconomic choices - Joseph Schumpeter called it 'creative destruction' - there is no known physical alternative -
'intelligent design' cannot do it because nobody knows
it is 'know how' itself that is evolving
... and eventually, after many false dawns and wrong turnings some economic scientists started to provide confirmation -
Paul Romer's 'Endogenous Growth Theory' explained how economic growth and wealth creation could result from the evolution of 'know how' ... by trial & error not calculation ...
Robert Axelrod - ‘The key to doing well lies not in overcoming others but in eliciting their co-operation. Individuals don’t have to be rational; the evolutionary process alone allows successful strategy to thrive, even if the players do not know why or how. No central authority is needed, cooperation is self policing’. The Evolution of Co-operation.
In this way a remarkably complex world can be understood, not in complex detail, but by process ...