Advertisement

Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 191–199 | Cite as

Homogeneous middleman groups as superorganisms, endogamous ethnic groups, and trust networks: Reply to comments on Janet Landa’s target article, ‘The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units’

  • Janet T. Landa
Article

Abstract

This article responds to some of the very valuable comments on my target article (Landa, J Bioeconomics 10(3):259–278, 2008) on homogeneous middleman groups (HMGs) as adaptive units. In addition to viewing HMGs as adaptive units, I discuss the idea of viewing HMGs as superorganisms and as endogamous ethnic groups, as well as re-emphasizing the importance of HMGs as trust networks. My theory of HMGs as adaptive units shares some similarities with biologists’ ‘biological market theory’ of mutualistic interactions between species.

Keywords

Ethnocentrism Epigenetic rules Cultural and biological group selection Patrilineages Stability of coalitions 

JEL Classification

D71 J15 L14 Z13 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernstein L. (1992) Opting out of the legal system: Extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry. Journal of Legal Studies 21: 115–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boehm C. (2008) Quantifying the study of cultural group selection: Comments on Janet Landa’s paper [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 293–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borofsky R. (2008) Studying “culture” scientifically is an oxymoron: The interesting question is why people don’t accept this. In: Brown M. J. (eds) Explaining culture scientifically. University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp 275–296Google Scholar
  4. Bshary R., Noe R. (2003) Biological markets: The ubiquitous influence of partner choice on the dynamics of cleaner fish-client reef fish interactions. In: Hammerstein P. (eds) Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 167–184Google Scholar
  5. Cooter R., Landa J. T. (1984) Personal vs. impersonal trade: The size of trading groups, and contract law. International Review of Law and Economics 4: 15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corning P. A. (2008) Adaptation in human societies: Proximate versus ultimate causation: Comments on Janet Landa’s paper [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ensminger J. (1997) Transaction costs and Islam: Explaining conversion in Africa. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 153: 4–29Google Scholar
  8. Epstein R. A. (2008) Is group selection necessary? An alternative interpretation of homogeneous middleman groups: Comments on Janet Landa’s paper [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field A. J. (2008a) Why multilevel selection matters [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 203–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field A. J. (2008b) Biological and cultural group selection: Comments on Janet Landa’s paper [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Firth R. (1946) Malay fishermen: Their peasant economy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghiselin M. T. (1989) Intellectual compromise: The bottom line. Paragon House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Greif A. (1993) Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: The Maghribi traders. American Economic Review 83: 525–548Google Scholar
  14. Höllbobler B., Wilson E. O. (2009) The superorganism: The beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper J. (2002) Of moths and men: An evolutionary tale, the untold story of science and the peppered moth. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Landa J. T. (1981) A theory of the ethnically homogeneous middleman group: An institutional alternative to contract law. The Journal of Legal Studies 10: 346–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landa J. T. (1998) The co-evolution of markets, entrepreneurship, laws and institutions in China’s economy in transition: A new institutional economics perspective. University of British Columbia Law Review 32(2): 391–421Google Scholar
  18. Landa J. T. (2008) The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units: Theory and empirical evidence viewed from a group selection framework [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (2005). Genes, mind and culture: The coevolutionary process (25th anniversary ed.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  20. Noe R. (2001) Biological markets: Partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of mutualisms. In: Noe R., Hooff Jan A. R. A. M., Hammerstein P. (eds) Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–118Google Scholar
  21. Noe R., Hammerstein P. (1994) Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 35: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richman B. D. (2006) How community institutions creates economic advantage: Jewish diamond merchants in New York. Law & Social Inquiry 31(2): 383–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rudge D. Y. (2005) Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Understanding of Science 14: 249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salter F. (2008) Genes and homogeneous trading groups: A comment on Janet Landa’s target paper [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 303–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sober E., Wilson D. S. (1998) Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Sosis R. (2005) Does religion promote trust? The role of signaling, reputation, and punishment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1: 1–30Google Scholar
  27. Sosis R., Swartwout P. (2008) Demonstrating group selection: A comment on Janet Landa’s ‘The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units’ [Special issue]. Journal of Bioeconomics 10(3): 297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson E. O. (1985) The ergonomics of caste in the social insects. The American Economic Review 68(4): 25–35Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, D. S. (2009a). Convergent cultural evolution and multilevel selection: Reply to comments on Janet Landa’s ‘The bioeconomics of homogeneous middleman groups as adaptive units: Theory and empirical evidence viewed from a group selection framework.’ Journal of Bioeconomics 11(2). doi: 10.1007/s10818-009-9063-z.
  30. Wilson, D. S. (2009b). Truth and reconciliation for group selection. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/#blogger_bio.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations