Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hodgson, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B25 - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary; Austrian
Right arrow B31 - Individuals
Right arrow B52 - Institutional; Evolutionary
Right arrow B53 - Austrian
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Cambridge Journal of Economics 28:291-300 (2004)
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 2, © Cambridge Political Economy Society 2004; all rights reserved

Notes and Comments

Hayekian evolution reconsidered: a response to Caldwell

Geoffrey M. Hodgson*

Address for correspondence: Malting House, 1 Burton End, West Wickham, Cambridgeshire CB1 6SD, UK; email: g.m.hodgson{at}herts.ac.uk

Caldwell (2001. Hodgson on Hayek: a critique, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, 541–55) raises a number of criticisms of Hodgson's (1993. Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics, Cambridge, UK and Ann Arbor, MI, Polity Press and University of Michigan Press) analysis of Hayek. This reply acknowledges the passages in The Constitution of Liberty where Hayek discusses evolutionary ideas. It is also agreed that the description in the secondary literature of Hayek as a ‘methodological individualist’ is misleading or flawed. However, it is argued that Hayek's neglect of Malthus remains real and problematic. This neglect is connected to Hayek's underestimation of the scale of the Darwinian intellectual revolution. It is also argued here that Caldwell's attempt to justify Hayek's analytical assumption of the given individual is unconvincing.

Key Words: Hayek • Darwin • Malthus • Evolution • Spontaneous order

JEL classifications: B25, B31, B52, B53

Manuscript received May 21, 2001; final version received February 20, 2002.


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
 History of Political EconomyHome page
G. Zwirn
Methodological Individualism or Methodological Atomism: The Case of Friedrich Hayek
History of Political Economy, March 1, 2007; 39(1): 47 - 80.
[PDF]

Home page
 Cambridge J EconHome page
B. Caldwell
Hayekian evolution reconsidered: a reply to Hodgson
Camb. J. Econ., March 1, 2004; 28(2): 301 - 305.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.