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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mayhew, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © Cambridge Political Economy Society

research-article

On the difficulty of evolutionary analysis

Anne Mayhew*

*University of Tennessee

Abstract

Thorstein Veblen's 100-year-old question—‘Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?’—remains relevant. Evolutionary analysis, even for those social scientists who trace their intellectual heritage to evolutionary thought, has been difficult for three reasons: effective incorporation of time requires a respectful and detailed treatment of the past; dominant social science paradigms have made it difficult to account for novelty; and concern with policy and current issues of social debate creates a tendency towards taxonomy. The twentieth-century history of economic anthropology and institutional economics illustrates that a failure to overcome these difficulties leaves Veblen's vision unfulfilled.

Manuscript received December 2, 1996; final version received June 26, 1997.


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
 Cambridge J EconHome page
M. A. Starr
Lifestyle conformity and lifecycle saving: a Veblenian perspective
Camb. J. Econ., July 14, 2008; (2008) ben020v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Administration & SocietyHome page
A. Sementelli
Distortions of Progress: Evolutionary Theories and Public Administration
Administration Society, October 1, 2007; 39(6): 740 - 760.
[Abstract] [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.