Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Argyrous, G.
Right arrow Articles by Sethi, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B20 - General
Right arrow B41 - Economic Methodology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society

research-article

The theory of evolution and the evolution of theory: Veblen's methodology in contemporary perspective

George Argyrous and Rajiv Sethi*

*University of New South Wales and Barnard College, Columbia University

Abstract

This paper traces recent developments in economic theory from the perspective of Veblen's methodological distinction between teleological and evolutionary modes of scientific thought. It is argued that the imposition of rational behaviour at the individual level prevents neoclassical theory from exhibiting genuine evolutionary processes, since decision rules are prevented from emerging out of a process of adaptation to a changing environment. The standard rationality postulate can nevertheless give rise to quasi-evolutionary sequences at the aggregate level. This possibility is blocked in macroeconomic literature by the use of the representative agent construct and the imposition of the hypothesis of self-fulfilling expectations.

Manuscript received November 2, 1993; final version received July 26, 1994.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Prog Hum GeogrHome page
T. J. Barnes
Political economy III: confessions of a political economist
Progress in Human Geography, February 1, 1998; 22(1): 94 - 104.
[PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.