Download Taking evolution seriously: what difference does it

7
theory predicts.7 Sometimes the argument advanced is sketchy and informal. At
other times it is precise and formal. But in neither case is the argument meant to
point out what is wrong with or missing in standard economic theory and to indicate
how a superior, truly non-standard evolutionary economics could look like. On the
contrary, the argument is meant to demonstrate that nothing serious is amiss with
standard economic theorising and, therefore, that there is no need to engage in nonstandard economic theorising. In some cases, as in the case of ‘Nash equilibrium’ in
game theory, the evolutionary defence or justification given seems to be superior to
traditional non-standard justifications. This has inspired some to plead for a radical
evolutionary reinterpretation of standard economic theory. The message here again
is the same: taking evolution seriously does not in any way diminish the usefulness of
standard economic theory. Taking evolution seriously does not necessitate any
repair, revision or modification of standard economic theory.8 Exactly the opposite is
true: taking evolution seriously only strengthens the confidence those conservatives
had in standard economic theory anyway.
3. The revisionists: Evolutionary theory calls for a friendly amendment of
standard economic theory
Conservatives hold that standard economic theory is not jeopardised by taking
evolution seriously. They argue that standard economic theory aptly and succinctly
summarises the outcomes of evolutionary processes. This means that their plea for
retaining standard economic theory is based on instrumental reasons. Their
acceptance of standard economic theory is not grounded in their belief that standard
economic theory, when taken at face value, realistically and adequately depicts
underlying causal processes and mechanisms. Revisionists take a somewhat
different view, and tend to argue that taking evolution seriously calls for a revision of
standard economic theory. But they do not have a wholesale revision in mind and
indeed many hold that the most essential parts of standard economic theory are
unchallenged, if not vindicated by evolutionary theory. The meta-theoretic position
motivating this stance is not a form of instrumentalism. Revisionists rather accept the
constrained maximisation framework of standard economic theory because they
believe that this framework gets roughly right how individuals actually choose.
Note that the issue of what implications evolution has for standard economic theory is
tacitly transformed here into the issue of what implications evolutionary theory has for
standard economic theory. This is quite telling for revisionists. Revisionists do not
pose the question of whether ongoing evolutionary processes tend to produce results
that standard economic theory predicts, as conservatives do. The question typically
posed by revisionists is rather whether what we can learn from evolutionary theory
about the results of past evolutionary processes can enhance our understanding of
present phenomena that are puzzling from the perspective of current standard
economic theory. The issue of what consequences this has for standard economic
theory, albeit not unimportant, is of secondary importance. Three differences
between conservatives and revisionists immediately catch the eye. First, unlike
7
See also Robson (2001, 2002) who uses standard economic theory to point out why processes of
biological evolution have endowed us with utility functions and with the capacity to act rationally upon
them. Glimcher (2003) urges neuroscientists to use economic theory in studying brain processes.
8
Sometimes it is argued that standard economic theory’s focus on equilibria may not be ill-conceived
since equilibria also figure prominently in attempts of contemporary standard evolutionary biology to
come to grips with processes of evolutionary change (see, e.g., Krugman 1999). Note that what here is
allegedly vindicated with recourse to evolutionary biology is not the substance of standard economic
theory, but its theoretical approach (or analytical framework).