Talk:Evolutionary economics

Difficulty of reading

I think the overview of this article is way too complicated for a person with standard education. I found the overview almost incomprehensible. If someone could redefine it with friendlier terms, that would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBoughton (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggested website

This is a very abridged and incomplete account of evolutionary economics which only focuses on a very early historical stage of its development.Curiously, today many evolutionary economists outside the US even would not include Veblen into the founders of the theory, but would start with Schumpeter and, perhaps, Hayek. For extensive information about modern evolutionary economics, see Esben Andersen's website: http://www.business.auc.dk/evolution/esa/welcome.html The present writer also has launched a related site: www.evolutionaryeconomics.net

Prof.Dr. Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, Germany chepi@uni-wh.de

NOTE: I tried to access www.evolutionaryeconomics.net, and got an immediate redirect to http://wirtschaft.uni-wh.de/lehrstuehle/lehrstuhl-evolutionsoekonomik-und-institutionentheorie/lehre/evolutionaryeconomicsnet

which consisted of the header "Dokument nicht gefunden!" followed by some explanation (I know enough German to understand "Dokument nicht gefunden!" but did not attempt to read anything beyond that.

I must also comment that the English in the article could used some help from a native speaker, and I'd be willing to propose some changes (in some cases I'd have to start with "I don't understanding what you're saying to try again" before I could make any recommendation on HOW to say it). Thank you for the article; I would only like to make it more readable.

suggested Veblen

For editors who might be interested: "Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science" Thorstein Veblen, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 12, 1898. --Ben 05:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate Evolutionary Game Theory

Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page with "Evolutionary Game Theory". I got confused at first, and I should've known better.radek 07:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merger in of Kenneth Boulding's Evolutionary Perspective

I have suggested that the above page, which is listed in articles needing wikifying, should be merged with this one. Perhaps it would make this article imbalanced, but that should only be temporary, since it seems that detail about the different economists working within the evolutionary perspective is regularly being added here. Thoughts? Itsmejudith 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

Anyone else got a view? Including on what needs to be done with the KBEP page if not included here? Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merger in of Complexity Economics

Are these two not essentially the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.157.121 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The opening of this article strikes me as quite POV in trying to convince the reader that Evolutionary Economics is better than "conventional economics". Maybe it is but this is an encyclopedia. For example: "It stresses complex interdependencies, competition, growth, and resource constraints." - how is this different from conventional economics? Second paragraph - essentially irrelevant, seems to be included just to get in a kick at "conventional economics" "does not take the characteristics of either the objects of choice or of the decision-maker as fixed" - not really true. A typical evolutionary economic model usually poses some kind of a FIXED rule of thumb and then analyzes what kind of rules would "survive". "Newtonian worldview" was challanged in biology? This makes no sense.

I'm very sympathetic to evolutionary economics but there's just some serious misrepresentin' going on here.radek 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with radek regarding Newtonian worldview, but should extend to entire paragraph: "Evolutionary economics . . . challenges the Newtonian worldview in economics in the similar manner, as . . . Darwinian evolutionary theory . . . " The referenced Darwin wiki article doesn't even mention Newton. This paragraph definitely needs justification, though I am not able to do so. Imagine&Engage 12:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the mainstream economics??

Everyone says that the others are mainstream. I suppose that the persons who wrote that Evolutionary Economics are mainstream, are "others". I don't think it's mainstream economics. For exapmle, how many economic-business universities are based on Evolutionary economics? I think very little, therefore, it does not seem is mainstream to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C9900 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Castellacci's comment on this article

Dr. Castellacci has reviewed economics&oldid=722271911 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Please add this reference to the list: Castellacci, F. (2007): "Evolutionary And New Growth Theories. Are They Converging?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 585-627, 07.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Castellacci has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Fulvio, Castellacci & Jose Miguel, Natera, 2011. "The dynamics of national innovation systems: a panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity," MPRA Paper 31583, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith and Charles Darwin

Darwin ideas seem to have been influenced by (amongst others) Adam Smith's famous work 'The Wealth of Nations' in which Smith explained for the first time how capitalist economies evolve in response to changing market conditions. May be worth pointing out. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reworked

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

As part of a university project, I have reworked this article. Hope that the new version is more comprehensible and thorough, and hope that it conforms to Wikipedia standards.Econ angoryushev (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]