Knowledge that Transforms

Thorstein Veblen proposed that economics should be reconstructed as a “post-Darwinian” science. One of the aims of this essay is to explore the meaning of this statement. A second aim is to show that American institutional economics had largely abandoned this commitment to Darwinian principles by the time of Veblen’s death. In this context, the appearance of the book by David Hamilton (1953)—especially with its original title of Newtonian Classicism and Darwinian Institutionalism—is all the more remarkable. It reestablished the Veblenian links between Darwinism and institutionalism that most institutionalists had abandoned. The first part of this essay summarizes the philosophical and analytical meaning of Darwinism and counters some prominent misunderstandings in this area. The second part shows how Veblen had incorporated these Darwinian ideas into his thinking. The third part shows how institutionalists after Veblen abandoned these Darwinian ideas. Having established this context, the fourth part emphasizes the importance of Hamilton’s contribution. What Is Darwinism? A host of misunderstandings surround the question of Darwinism and its relation with the social sciences. Contrary to widespread suppositions, Darwinism does not support any form of racism, sexism, nationalism, or imperialism or provide any moral justification for “the survival of the fittest. ” Furthermore, Darwinism does not imply that militant conflict is inevitable, that human inequalities or power or wealth are inevitable, that cooperation or altruism are unimportant or unnatural, that evolution always leads

Diversified business groups, consisting of legally independent firms operating across diverse industries, are ubiquitous in emerging markets. Groups around the world share certain attributes but also vary substantially in structure, ownership, and other dimensions. This paper proposes a business group taxonomy, which is used to formulate hypotheses and present evidence about the reasons for the formation, prevalence, and evolution of groups in different environments. In interpreting the evidence, the authors pay particular attention to two aspects neglected in much of the literature: the circumstances under which groups emerge and the historical evidence on some of the questions addressed by recent studies. They argue that business groups are responses to different economic conditions and that, from a welfare standpoint, they can sometimes be “paragons” and, at other times, “parasites.” The authors conclude with an agenda for future research.

How much and how fast should we react to the threat of global warming? The Stern Review argues that the damages from climate change are large, and that nations should undertake sharp and immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. An examination of the Review's radical revision of the economics of climate change finds, however, that it depends decisively on the assumption of a near-zero time discount rate combined with a specific utility function. The Review's unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today's marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.