Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 281–303 | Cite as

A survey of evolutionary policy: normative and positive dimensions

  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
  • Giorgos Kallis
Article

Abstract

We explore public policy from the perspective of evolutionary analysis. Potential entry points for developing a normative evolutionary policy theory are examined, which involves a critical examination of the related idea of “evolutionary progress”. The meaning of evolutionary policy is next studied from two different, normative and positive angles: namely, policy design informed by evolutionary thinking; and policy-making and politics as an evolutionary process. Several examples are provided to discuss the value of evolutionary thinking for policy, including in the context of the current economic crisis. Next, evolutionary policy is compared with policy advice coming from two dominant schools of policy analysis, namely neoclassical economics and public choice theory. We conclude that evolutionary thinking offers a distinct and useful perspective on public policy change and design. Nevertheless, there is a need for more synthesis and coherence among different studies as well as for policy experiments and in-depth empirical studies.

Keywords

Coevolution Escaping lock-in Evolutionary politics Evolutionary progress Normative versus positive policy theories Optimal diversity 

References

  1. Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing of cooperation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 60, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azar, C., & Sandén, B. A. (2011). The elusive quest for technology neutral policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. R. (2006). Punctuated equilibrium theory and environmental policy. In R. Repetto (Ed.), Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of U.S. environmental policy (pp. 24–46). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The Theory of Environmental Policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binmore, K. G. (2005). Natural justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. (1986). Liberty, market and the state: Political economy in the 1980’s. Sussex: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. General Systems, 14, 69–85.Google Scholar
  11. Cantner, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conway Morris, C. (2003). Life’s solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (1994). Burying the vehicle. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 616–617.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1943). The development of American pragmatism. In D. D. Runes (Ed.), Twentieth century philosophy (pp. 451–467). New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  17. Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., & Soete, L. L. (Eds.). (1988). Technical change and economic theory. New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Dosi, G., Marengo, L., & Pasquali, C. (2006). How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation. Research Policy, 35, 1110–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dowding, K. (2000). How not to use evolutionary theory in politics: A critique of Peter John. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(1), 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovations: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 181–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.Google Scholar
  23. Epstein, C., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fagerberg, J. (2003). Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: An appraisal of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(2), 125–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter—the impact of non-selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. Economic Journal, 112, C1–C33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feldman, M. S., Khademian, A. M., Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. S. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 89–99.Google Scholar
  27. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Givel, M. (2006). Punctuated equilibrium in limbo: The tobacco lobby and U.S. state policy making from 1990 to 2003. Policy Studies Journal, 43(3), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould, S. J. (1988). On replacing the idea of progress with an operational notion of directionality. In M. Nitecki (Ed.), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gowdy, J. (1994). Coevolutionary economics: The economy, society and the environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  33. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hay, C. (1999). Crisis and the structural transformation of the state: Interrogating the process of change. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(3), 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hahn, R. W. (1990). The political economy of environmental regulation: Towards a unifying framework. Public Choice, 65, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hayek, F. A. (Ed.). (1967). Notes on the evolution of systems of rules of conduct. In Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (pp. 66–81). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hekkert, M., Suurs, R., Negro, S., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Social Darwinism in Anglophone academic journals: A contribution to the history of the term. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17(4), 428–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacobsson, S. B., & Bergek, A. (2011). Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Janssen, M. A., & Jager, W. (2002). Simulating diffusion of green products: Co-evolution of firms and consumers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johansson, P. O., & Löfgren, K. G. (1985). The economics of forestry and natural resources. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. John, P. (1999). Ideas and interests; agendas and implementation: An evolutionary explanation of policy change in British local government finance. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(1), 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kallis, G., & Norgaard, R. (2010). Coevolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 69, 690–699.Google Scholar
  44. Kemp, R., Schot, J. W., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, 175–196.Google Scholar
  45. Kerber, W. (2005). Applying evolutionary economics to economic policy: The example of competitive federalism. In K. Dopfer (Ed.), Economics, evolution and the state: The governance of complexity (pp. 296–324). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Kerber, W. (2011). Competition, innovation, and maintaining diversity through competition law. In J. Drexl, W. Kerber, & R. Podszun (Eds.), Economic approaches to competition law: Foundations and limitations (pp. 173–201). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  47. Kerr, P. (2002). Saved from extinction: Evolutionary theorising, politics and the state. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4(2), 330–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  49. Lewis, O., & Steinmo, S. (2010). Taking evolution seriously in political science. Theory in Biosciences, 129(2–3), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29, 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moreau, F. (2004). The role of the state in evolutionary microeconomics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(6), 847–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mulder, P., de Groot, H. L. F., & Hofkes, M. W. (2001). Economic growth and technological change: A comparison of insights from a neoclassical and an evolutionary perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 68, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Munro, A. (1997). Economics and biological evolution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 9, 429–449.Google Scholar
  58. Nannen, V., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2010). Policy instruments for evolution of bounded rationality: Application to climate-energy problems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Nill, J., & Kemp, R. (2009). Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? Research Policy, 38(4), 668–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Norton, B., Costanza, R., & Bishop, R. C. (1998). The evolution of preferences. Why ‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecological Economics, 24, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pelikan, P., & Wegner, G. (Eds.). (2003). The evolutionary analysis of economic policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Penn, D. J. (2003). The evolutionary roots of our environmental problems: Towards a Darwinian ecology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 78(3), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependency, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Potts, J. (2000). The new evolutionary microeconomics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  67. Ridley, M. (1995). The Red Queen: Sex and the evolution of human nature. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  68. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism and truth: Philosophical papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ruse, M. (1999). Mystery of mysteries: Is evolution a social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Safarzynska, K., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2010). Demand-supply coevolution with multiple increasing returns: Policy analysis for unlocking and system transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sartorius, C., & Zundel, S. (Eds.). (2005). Time Strategies, Innovation and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  73. Schneider, E. D., & Kay, J. J. (1994). Complexity and thermodynamics: Towards a new ecology. Futures, 24, 626–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schot, J. W., & Geels, F. W. (2007). Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change: A critical survey of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(5), 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schubert, C. (2012). Is novelty always a good thing? Towards an evolutionary welfare economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22(3), 585–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sen, A. (1993). On the Darwinian view of progress. Population and Development Review, 19(1), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Somit, A., & Peterson, S. (1992). The dynamics of evolution. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  80. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2007). Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(5), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2008). Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(3–4), 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Faber, A., Idenburg, A. M., & Oosterhuis, F. H. (2006). Survival of the greenest: Evolutionary economics and policies for energy innovation. Environmental Sciences, 3(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Stagl, S. (2003). Coevolution of economic behaviour and institutions: Towards a theory of institutional change. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(3), 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Truffer, B., & Kallis, G. (2011). Environmental innovation and societal transitions: Introduction and overview. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Verspagen, B. (2009). The use of modeling tools for policy in evolutionary environments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ward, H. (2003). The co-evolution of regimes of accumulation and patterns of rule: State autonomy and the possibility of functional responses to crisis. New Political Economy, 8(2), 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wegner, G. (1997). Policy from an evolutionary perspective. A new approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153, 485–509.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone: How Darwin’s theory can change the way we think about our lives. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
  90. Windrum, P., & Birchenhall, C. T. (2005). Structural change in the presence of network externalities: A co-evolutionary model of technological successions. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15, 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Witt, U. (1992). The endogenous public choice theorist. Public Choice, 73, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Witt, U. (Ed.). (1993). Evolutionary economics. The international library of critical writings in economics, Vol. 25. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  93. Witt, U. (2003). Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Witt, U. (2011). The dynamics of consumer behavior and the transition to sustainable consumption patterns. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wohlgemuth, M. (2002). Evolutionary approaches to politics. Kyklos, 55, 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zeppini, P., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2011). Competing recombinant technologies for environmental innovation: Extending Arthur’s model of lock-in. Industry and Innovation, 18(3), 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Giorgos Kallis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ICREABarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Science and TechnologyUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra (Cerdanyola)Spain
  3. 3.Department of Economics and Economic HistoryUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBellaterra (Cerdanyola)Spain
  4. 4.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental StudiesVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.NAKE and Tinbergen InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations