Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The challenge of Evo-Devo: implications for evolutionary economists

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Journal of Evolutionary Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Usually, evolutionary economists equate evolutionary theory with modern Darwinism. However, the rise of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) puts into question the monopoly of Darwinism in evolutionary biology. The major divergences between the two paradigms in evolutionary biology are drawn in the analysis of three trade-offs: population vs. typological thinking, creative role of natural selection vs. internal (inherent) change, and microevolution vs. macroevolution. It is argued here that the Evo-Devo breakthrough helps us to understand better the limits to Darwinism in the social realm and outline the contours of an alternative paradigm in evolutionary economics that favors structural macroevolution and what Schumpeter called “change from within”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that, by “conditions of existence” Cuvier “did not only designate adaptation to external environment, but also coordination of parts by and for the pursuit of proper function” (Gould 2002, p. 294, note). In general, the debate presented here between Geoffroy and Cuvier is oversimplified. For a more detailed account, see Gould (2002), pp. 291–312.

  2. What Mayr means here by “real” has no ontological component: being real is to dispose of explanatory power or “causal efficacy” (Sober 1980, p. 371).

  3. Wagner (2007, p. 151) summarizes very aptly this turn in the history of biology with the following rhetorical question: “Was everyone before Darwin an idiot?”

  4. The exclusive role of natural selection in evolution characterizes the “hardening of the Modern Synthesis” (Gould 2002) and is labelled “adaptationism” (Orzack and Forber 2010). This debate is, however, beyond the scope of this paper. We don’t need the excesses of Modern Synthesis to prove the limits to the explanatory power of natural selection.

  5. In Evo-Devo, the decomposability of complex structures into simpler ones is called modularity. Note, however, that modularity concerns the quasi-independence of structures and not of simple traits: “Modules are generally distinguished by their greater internal (intramodule) than external (intermodule) integration, by their repetitiveness and by their persistence and reuse” (Müller 2010, p. 944).

  6. For most Evo-Devo scholars, natural selection mainly intervenes to “elaborate” and “refine” (Müller 2010, p. 323) the morphological structures (body plans) developed by internal change. However, In Carroll’s version (e.g. Carroll 2005, pp. 286–91), natural selection has a far more important role: it also checks for the viability of the different morphological structures in force. Note also that, in spite of their emphasis on inherent change, all the Evo-Devo authors insist on the importance of environment for evolution and the creation of novelties. Still, the influence of environment has a Lamarckian flavor: it induces changes in developmental genes or systems without necessarily passing through natural selection mechanisms.

  7. Usually, in economics the notion of micro-reductionism goes hand in hand with a version of methodological individualism. Obviously, this is not the case with population thinking and Darwinian biology. Here, micro-reductionism means to extrapolate the properties of higher levels of organization from the lower levels. Regarding the complex status of individuals in Darwinian population thinking, see Sober (1980, pp. 371–2).

  8. Dawkins’ maxim, according to which, genetically speaking, “individuals and groups are like clouds in the sky or dust-storms in the desert”, expresses in the most extreme way the new genetic micro-reductionism that prevailed in the golden era of Modern Synthesis.

  9. For many years, the expansion of selection to higher levels was (incorrectly) labeled “macroevolution”. The misnomer makes the discussion susceptible to confusion. Note that the notion of macroevolution used here (see mainly Amundson 2005) has nothing to do with the idea of “species selection” advocated by Gould (2002, chapter 8) and his colleagues. For example, some evolutionary economists (e.g. van Bergh and Gowdy 2003) convincingly argued that the possibility of selection between groups challenges the individualistic postulates of neoclassical economics. Nevertheless, their thesis that group selection puts into question the microfoundations project of mainstream economics disregards the fact that group, or multilevel, selection is but a simulacrum of Darwinian microevolution.

  10. Within evolutionary economics Pelikan (2011) sees Evo-Devo not as an alternative paradigm but as a complement leading to a more consistent generalization of Darwinism. Significantly, his objective is to provide “a solid micro-basis” and to establish “a well-defined link to methodological individualism in the social sciences” (p. 344).

  11. This strain of literature tries to temper Mayr’s distinction by referring to Tinbergen’s four causes but the outcome is still demanding. Regarding the drawbacks to Mayr’s distinction, the misinterpretation of Tinbergen, the conflation of Mayr’s backward-looking causation and population genetics’ forward-looking causation and the chaos that has ensued, see Liagouras (2017).

  12. For example, Stoelhorst and Richerson (2013, p. S52) explain that the “detailed phylogeny of the path by which tribal-scale human organizations evolved into the large-scale organizations of modern complex societies” is “beyond the scope” of their paper. Witt and Schwesinger (2013) provide a very condensed account of the aforementioned phylogenetic path. Still, they concede that what remains in capitalism from the initial egalitarian endowment are just “footprints”.

  13. Note that the representative firm of standard neoclassical theory is actually more alive in textbooks than in scientific research. Population thinking is already employed by neoclassical scholars when they analyze “competitive selection” in markets (e.g. Jovanovic 1982). Evolutionary game theory is another area where population thinking and neoclassical scholarship converge (Friedman 1998). See also the intriguing comparison, in formal terms, of Walras and Darwin in Joosten (2006).

  14. This results in the following important difference that will not be developed here. The inner workings of single conventions or rules are quite limpid and hence they don’t need special examination. The focus of analysis concerns mainly their emergence and persistence. On the contrary, the inner workings of a complex social structure are of primary importance (Liagouras 2016).

  15. Similar concerns apply to the alternative theory of consumption put forward by Nelson and Consoli (2010). Their approach very adequately describes consumers’ behaviour in the everyday life of a capitalist economy. But their realistic picture of homo oeconomicus presumes that social structures are already in place. On this point, see Hédoin (2012) who, taking Avner Greif’s game-theoretic explorations of late medieval economies as an example, shows that micro-explanations implicitly presuppose macro-structures.

  16. Buenstorf and Cordes (2008) present a model of cultural evolution that challenges “the vision of a permanent transition toward sustainability” on the grounds that green consumption patterns “are not self-reinforcing and cannot be ‘locked-in’ permanently” (p. 646). Actually, what their model shows is that, within a consumerist culture animated by “apparently insatiable human desires”, selection forces work against the transition to an environment-friendly model of consumption.

  17. Godfrey-Smith 2009, ch. 8; 2012) argues that most of the so-called Darwinian models of culture are simply populational and not Darwinian. But this question is beyond the scope of the present paper.

  18. Note that, in evolutionary accounts of industrial dynamics, populations usually consist of firms and/or routines rather than individuals. Therefore, micro-evolutionary processes do not imply the adoption of methodological individualism. For more on this point, see Vromen (2010).

  19. Foster (2011, p. 13) nicely resumes Keynes’ point in evolutionary parlance: “in the short period, variations in financial flows are important and, if too many firms slip out of their basins of attraction because of a negative aggregate shock, this can impact upon long period, non-equilibrium trajectories, leading to positive feedback and sustained underemployment of resources”.

  20. Regarding scholarship in evolutionary macroeconomic modelling during the intermediate period between the 1980s and 1990s, see Silverberg and Verspagen (2005).

  21. The dismissal of the Keynesian critique of Say’s law does not characterize the totality of the evolutionary camp. For an extremely interesting integration of Schumpeterian and Keynesian perspectives, see Dosi et al. (2008, 2010). However, the authors interpret their agent-based models (ABMs) as providing the evolutionary microfoundations for macroeconomics. I think that such a claim neglects the fact that, in ABMs, agents interact according to rules prescribed by the researcher. For example, if the rules of the game presuppose the existence of Keynesian product, labor, and capital markets, then the outcomes of simulations will globally advocate the Keynesian point of view. The domination of the rules of the game over agents’ actions means that ABMs imply instead macrofoundations of evolutionary microeconomics. Certainly, the economy needs ABMs (Farmer and Foley 2009), but the latter are mainly useful for exploring and testing different scenarios within given macroeconomic theories. One could hope that they would also enable us to screen different approaches to determine if they accord with stylized facts. Still, the history of modern economics teaches that the empirical screening between alternative theories is a messy and inconclusive undertaking.

  22. In Dopfer et al. (2004), faith in market coordination is replaced by the workings of technological and organizational meso-rules. Nonetheless, the reduction of macro properties to the meso-level still applies.

  23. As Kregel (1987, p. 528) put it: “Thus it is not macroeconomics that has to be brought into closer touch with microeconomics, but rather one must try to formulate a macrofoundation for uncertain individual decisions”. Kregel’s remark also applies to behavioral economics, which conceives the structural contradictions of the system as problems of the individual rationality.

  24. It is clear that historicized and structural analyses of the capitalist firm such as that of Lazonick and O’Sullivan’s are not at all qualified to be published in the “four-star” journals of economics and management. The question that remains, however, is what we learn about the world we live in from the ahistorical “theories of the firm” proliferating in the “top” journals. Similar concerns also arise regarding the relevance of Darwinian theories of organization. Even those who try to keep track of the historical record end up suggesting that the tribal instincts of equality and altruism could again dominate in our knowledge-based society (e.g. Bowles 2004, p. 501). Unfortunately, this is too far from the reality of the modern capitalist firm.

  25. For a stimulating rereading of Schumpeter’s thought through a Minskyan lens, see Ülgen (2014).

  26. In the same vein, see Stoelhorst’s (2005) paper, which is informed by Gould’s (2002) account of the “formalist” tradition and his pluralist view of evolution that considers developmental and/or structural “constraints” as necessary complements to Darwinism. Unfortunately, due perhaps to the rise of fashionable Generalized Darwinism, the path opened by Stoelhorst (2005) has not been followed. Consequently, the integration of Evo-Devo at the micro-level has not advanced beyond the 1980’s and 1990’s negative perception of developmental processes as “constraints” on the workings of natural selection.

References

  • Abzhanov A, Protas M, Grant BR, Grant PR, Tabin CJ (2004) Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin’s finches. Science 305:1462–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE, Hodgson GM, Hull DL, Knudsen T, Mokyr J, Vanberg VJ (2008) In defence of generalized Darwinism. J Evol Econ 18:577–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen ES (1994) Evolutionary economics: post-Schumpeterian contributions. Pinter, London

  • Ariew A (2003) Ernst Mayr's' ultimate/proximate'distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biol Philos 18:553–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar R (1998/1979) The possibility of naturalism. Routledge, Abingdon, Third edition

  • Bowles S (2004) Microeconomics: behavior, institutions and evolution. Princeton University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brakefield PM (2011) Evo-Devo and accounting for Darwin’s endless forms. Philos Trans R Soc B 366:2069–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach O, Ghiselin MT (2007) Evolution and development. Past, present and future. Theory Biosci 125:157–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf G, Cordes C (2008) Can sustainable consumption be learned? A model of cultural evolution. Ecol Econ 67:646–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callebaut W (2011a) Beyond generalized Darwinism. I. Evolutionary economics from the perspective of naturalistic philosophy of biology. Biol Theory 6:338–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callebaut W (2011b) Beyond generalized Darwinism. II. More things in heaven and earth. Biol Theory 6:351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callebaut W, Müller GB, Newman SA (2007) The organismic systems approach: Evo-Devo and the streamlining of the naturalistic agenda. In: Sansom R, Brandon RN (eds) Integrating evolution and development. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 25–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll SB (2005) Endless forms most beautiful: the new science of Evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom, New York: Norton

  • Carroll SB (2008) Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell 11:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler AD (1977) The visible hand. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origins of species. John Murray, London. Reprint: penguin, London 1985

  • Davidson EH, Erwin DH (2006) Gene regulatory networks and the evolution of animal body plans. Science 311:796–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Robertis EM (2008) Evo-Devo: variations on ancestral themes. Cell 132:185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Depew DJ, Weber BR (1995) Darwinism evolving: systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer K, Foster J, Pots J (2004) Micro-meso-macro. J Evol Econ 14(3):263–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 26:1120–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Roventini A (2008) The microfoundations of business cycles: an evolutionary, multi-agent model. J Evol Econ 18:413–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Roventini A (2010) Schumpeter meeting Keynes: a policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles. J Econ Dyn Control 34:1748–1767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutt AK (2003) On post Walrasian economics, macroeconomic policy, and heterodox economics. Int J Polit Econ 33:47–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin DH (2010) Microevolution and macroevolution are not governed by the same processes. In: Ayala FJ, Arp R (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin DH, Davidson EH (2009) The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks. Nat Rev Genet 10:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460:685–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster J (2011) Evolutionary macroeconomics: a research agenda. J Evol Econ 21:5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fracchia J, Lewontin RC (1999) Does Culture Evolve? Hist Theory 38:52–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C, Perez C (1988) Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: Dosi et al (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 38–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman D (1998) On economic applications of evolutionary game theory. J Evol Econ 8:15–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart J, Kirschner M (2007) The theory of facilitated variation. PNAS 104(suppl. 1):8582–8589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF (2003) Evo-Devo, Devo-Evo, and Devgen-Popgen. Biol Philos 18:347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2012) Darwinism and cultural change. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2160–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2009) Formalizing Darwinism and inclusive fitness theory. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1533):3135–3141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BK (2000) Guest editorial: Evo-Devo or devo-evo – does it matter? Evol Dev 2:177–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BK (2012) Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo): past, present, and future. Evolution: Education and Outreach 5:184–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall BK, Kerney R (2012) Levels of biological organization and the origin of novelty. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 318B:428–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1988) The fatal conceit: the errors of socialism. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hédoin C (2012) Linking institutions to economic performance: the role of macro-structures in micro-explanations. J Inst Econ 8:327–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson GM (2002) Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology. J Evol Econ 12:259–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson GM, Knudsen T (2004) The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention: the functions and implications of habit. J Econ Behav Organ 54:19–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover KD (2009) Microfoundations and the ontology of microeconomics. In: Kincaid H, Ross D (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 386–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1965) The effect of essentialism on taxonomy – two thousand years of stasis (I and II). British Journal for the philosophy of science, I: 15: 314-26; II: 16: 1–18

  • Joosten R (2006) Walras and Darwin: an odd couple? J Evol Econ 191:561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic B (1982) Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica 50:649–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen S (2013) Predicting the ‘global financial crisis’: post-Keynesian macroeconomics. Econ Rec 89(285):228–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King JE (2012) The microfoundations delusion: metaphor and dogma in the history of macroeconomics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knottenbauer K (2009) Recent developments in evolutionary biology and their relevance for evolutionary economics. Papers on economics and evolution 0911

  • Kregel JA (1987) Rational spirits and the post Keynesian macrotheory of microeconomics. De Economist 135:520–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Sterenly K, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2011) Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr’s proximate-ultimate dichotomy useful? Science 334(1512):1512–1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson T (1997) Economics and reality. Routledge, Abington

  • Lazonick W, O’Sullivan M (2000) Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance. Econ Soc 29:13–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins R, Lewontin RC (1985) The dialectical biologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewens T (2009) What is wrong with the typological thinking? Philos Sci 76:355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (2001) It ain’t necessarily so. Granta Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Liagouras G (2013) Lost in translation: why generalized Darwinism is a misleading strategy for studying socio-economic evolution. Am J Econ Sociol 72:1255–1286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagouras G (2016) From heterodox political economy to generalized Darwinism: Geoffrey Hodgson’s tensions in retrospect. Rev Radic Polit Econ 48:467–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liagouras G (2017) Population thinking vs. essentialism in biology and evolutionary economics. In: Hanappi H, Katsikides S, Scholz-Wäckerle M (eds) Evolutionary political economy in action: a Cyprus symposium. Routledge, Abdington, pp 36–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin R, Sunley P (2015) Towards a developmental turn in evolutionary economic geography? Reg Stud 49:712–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1959) Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. Reprinted as Typological versus Population Thinking. In: Mayr E (ed) Evolution and the diversity of life. Selected Essays. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe JS (1994) Competition, Fisher’s principle and increasing returns in the selection processes. J Evol Econ 4:327–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe JS, Foster J, Ramlogan R (2006) Adaptive economic growth. Camb J Econ 30:7–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology does not offer a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In: Ayala FJ, Arp R (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 213–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky HP (1982) Can “it” happen again? Essays on instability and finance. ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB (2010) Epigenetic innovation. In Pigliucci M, Müller GB (2010) Evolution - The extended synthesis. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 307–332

  • Müller GB, Newman SA (2005) The innovation triad: an EvoDevo agenda. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 304B:487–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Consoli D (2010) An evolutionary theory of household consumption behavior. J Evol Econ 20:665–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1974) Neoclassical vs. evolutionary theories of economic growth: critique and prospects. Econ J 84:886–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Orzack SH, Forber P (2010) Adaptationism. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/adaptationism/

  • Pagano U (2011) Interlocking complementarities and institutional change. J Inst Econ 7:373–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan P (2011) Evolutionary developmental economics: how to generalize Darwinism fruitfully to help comprehend economic change. J Evol Econ 21:341–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin H (2008) Evolutionary thought in psychology: a brief history. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Saviotti PP (1996) Techological evolution, variety and the economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Saviotti PP, Pyka A (2013) The co-evolution of innovation, demand and growth. Econ Innov New Technol 22:461–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwesinger G (2013) Natural and economic selection – lessons from the Evo-Devo and multi-level selection debate. Jena economic research papers, 2013-14

  • Setterfield M, Suresh SG (2014) Aggregate structural macroeconomic analysis: a reconsideration and defense. Camb J Econ 38:797–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S (2009) Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457:818–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg G, Verspagen B (2005) Evolutionary theorizing on economic growth. In: Dopfer K (ed) The evolutionary foundations of economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 506–539

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Philos Sci 47:350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoelhorst JW (2005) The naturalist view of universal Darwinism: an application to the evolutionary theory of the firm. In: Finch J, Orillard M (eds) Complexity and the economy: implications for economic policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 127–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoelhorst JW, Richerson PJ (2013) A naturalistic theory of economic organization. J Econ Behav Organ 90:S45–S56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2001) The evolutionary turn in game theory. J Econ Methodol 8(1):113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly C (1984) Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ülgen F (2014) Schumpeterian economic development and financial innovations: a conflicting evolution. J Inst Econ 10:257–277

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh JCJM, Gowdy JM (2003) The microfoundations of macroeconomics: an evolutionary perspective. Camb J Econ 27:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen T (1899) The barbarian status of women, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. IV. Reprinted in Veblen, T. (1994) Essays on our changing order, edited by L. Ardzrooni, Routledge/Thoemmes Press, London: 50–64

  • Veblen T (1914) The instinct of workmanship and the state of the industrial arts. Routledge/Thoemmes Press, London 1994

  • Von Salvini-Plawen L, Mayr E (1977) On the evolution of photoreceptors and eyes. Evolutionary Biology 10: 207-263

  • Vromen JJ (2009) Advancing evolutionary explanations in economics: The limited usefulness of Tinbergen’s four questions classification. In: Kincaid H, Ross D (eds) Oxford handbook of philosophy of economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 337–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Vromen JJ (2010) MICRO-foundations in strategic management: squaring Coleman’s diagram. Erkenntnis 73:365–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (2007) How wide and how deep is the divide between population genetics and developmental evolution? Biol Philos 22:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M 2003 [1905] The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Courier Dover Publ., New York

  • West-Eberhard MJ (2008) Toward a modern revival of Darwin’s theory of evolutionary novelty. Philos Sci 75(5):899–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (2010) Multilevel selection and major transitions. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution-the extended synthesis. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 81–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS, Gowdy JM (2013) Evolution as a general theoretical framework for economics and public policy. J Econ Behav Organ 90:S3–S10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsor MP (2006) The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in metahistory. Hist Philos Life Sci 28:149–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U (2001) Learning to consume – a theory of wants and the growth of demand. J Evol Econ 11:25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U (2010) Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 21:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt U, Schwesinger G (2013) Phylogenetic footprints in organizational behavior. J Econ Behav Organ 90:S33–S44

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ulrich Witt and three anonymous referees for their stimulating remarks on earlier versions of this article. Of course, the usual caveats apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece

    George Liagouras

Authors
  1. George Liagouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Liagouras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liagouras, G. The challenge of Evo-Devo: implications for evolutionary economists. J Evol Econ 27, 795–823 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0525-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0525-5

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation