Capitalism in Evolution

Capitalism in Evolution

Global Contentions – East and West

Edited by Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Makoto Itoh and Nobuharu Yokokawa

Contributors to this volume argue that to understand capitalism in evolution, this diversity of systems and approaches must be taken into account and their individual evolutions analysed. This book represents a major understanding of the evolution of capitalism in the twenty first century and brings together a distinguished group of experts with perspectives from America, Europe and Japan.

Chapter 5: The evolution of capitalism from the perspective of institutional and evolutionary economics

Geoffrey M. Hodgson

Subjects: economics and finance, institutional economics


Geoffrey M. Hodgson INTRODUCTION The terms ‘institutional economics’ and ‘evolutionary economics’ are now widely used, each to refer to a variety of theoretical approaches and perspectives.1 The term ‘institutional economics’, however, was first applied to the broad approach engineered by American economists such as Thorstein Veblen, John Commons and Wesley Mitchell. Non-Americans such as Karl Polanyi, William Kapp, Gunnar Myrdal and Shigeto Tsuru also came to identify themselves with this institutionalist tradition. Furthermore, this same tradition of institutional economics was the first to adopt the ‘evolutionary’ label and to argue that ideas from Darwinian evolutionary biology could be usefully transplanted into economic science. Accordingly, it is very appropriate that the term ‘institutional and evolutionary economics’, or just ‘institutional economics’, should be applied to this post-Veblenian legacy. Institutional economics was actually the dominant intellectual approach in America in the first few decades of the twentieth century. However, institutionalism never completed a systematic approach to economic theory of the stature or compass of that of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Léon Walras or Alfred Marshall. Furthermore, institutionalism itself contained a diversity of approaches and there was a failure to obtain widespread agreement on its definition, boundaries and common core. Another reason why American institutionalism failed to develop a systematic theory was because it was partially disabled by a combined result of the profound shifts in social science in the 1910–40 period and of the rise of a mathematical style of neoclassical economics in America in the 1930s. Without going into...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information