|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
structure capable of doing so. Anything less falls short of what is required for the task at hand.
Of course, to argue that economics should be an evolutionary discipline is not the same as actually creating an evolutionary economics. It must be clear from the outset that Veblen did not create a full-blown, systematic evolutionary economics. There is not even a consensus on the degree to which he made clear exactly what he envisioned. At one extreme is Sowell, who argues that Veblen gave only “sparse and sketchy” [1967, 178] hints as to what an evolutionary economics would look like. At the other extreme is Hodgson, who argues that he left us “with plentiful hints and insights, many of which are brilliant, several contradictory … his significance for evolutionary economics in particular, and economics in general, remains underestimated to this day” [1992, 327].
The underlying assumption of this book is that Hodgson was closer to the truth. Veblen left us with enough of a vision to make it worth our while to examine his ideas in detail. We should not expect to find answers to all our questions, but we will find a vibrant approach to economics that has been largely ignored by the bulk of the economics profession. A revival of interest in Veblen’s project is worthwhile. Modern economics has had some successes, but, just as Veblen complained over a century ago, it is incapable of explaining the process of change. Veblen was not able to reach his own ambitious goal. But that does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. It is hoped that this work might even inspire a few people to meet his challenge to create a whole new way to do economics.1
An essential element in Veblen’s vision is that the evolution of an economy is non-teleological. That means that the system is