Abstract
Two main sorts of arguments have been employed by Nelson and Winter to justify the existence of an evolutionary research program. The first corresponds to their wish to propose theories at least as robust as neoclassical ones on the same questions. We highlight that Nelson and Winter tried to avoid incommensurability between neoclassical theories and their own theory. They wanted to prevent neoclassical theories to define their evolutionary analysis as an empirical work complementary to the neoclassical theoretical work. We also underscore that the emphasis put on robustness was motivated by the wish to propose an alternative to neoclassical theories. This element was associated with a second wish which was to propose a representation of technical change that would be better than neoclassical theories. By taking the assumptions and outcomes of non-neoclassical theories into account, Nelson and Winter asserted their dissatisfaction with the neoclassical definition of technical change. For these reasons, we argue that Nelson and Winter’s book was a tentative attempt to propose an evolutionary theory as robust as the neoclassical one but based on a better representation of technical change.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1998) Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Andersen, E. (1994) Evolutionary Economics: Post-Schumpeterian Contributions, Pinter, London.
Arrow, K. (1962) “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in R. Nelson (ed) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, pp. 609–625.
Dosi, G. (1982) “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories,” Research Policy 11. 3: 147–162.
Freeman, C. (1974) The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Freeman, C., J. Clark. and L. Soete (1982) Unemployment and Technical Innovation: a Study of Long Waves and Economic Development, Pinter, London.
Friedman, M. (1953) “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in M. Friedman (ed) Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–43.
Galbraith, J. (1952) American Capitalism: the Concept of Countervailing Power, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hahn, F. and R. Solow (1995) A Critical Essay on Macroeconomic Theory, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Hodgson, G. (1994) “Institutionalism, ‘Old’ and ‘New’,” in G. Hodgson, W. Samuels and M. Tool (eds) The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics A-K, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Kay, N. (1988) “The R&D Function: Corporate Strategy and Structure,” in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp. 282–294.
Klamer, A. (1983) Conversations with Economists, Rawman and Allanheld, Totowa.
Kline, S. J. and N. Rosenberg (1986) “An Overview of Innovation,” in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds), The Positive Sum Strategy. Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academic Press, Washington, pp. 275–305.
Lakatos, I. (1970) “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs,” in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 91–196.
Malinvaud, E. (1993) “Regard d’un ancien sur les nouvelles théories de la croissance,” Revue Economique 44. 2: 171–188.
Nelson, R. (1959) “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research,” Journal of Political Economy 67. 3: 297–306.
Nelson, R. (1981) “Research on Productivity Growth and Productivity Differentials: Dead Ends and New Departures,” Journal of Economic Literature 19. 3: 1029–1062.
Nelson, R. (1994) “What Has Been the Matter with the Neoclassical Growth Theory,” in G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds) The Economics of Growth and Technical Change, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp. 290-324.
Nelson, R. (1995) “Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change,” Journal of Economic Literature 33. 1: 48–90.
Nelson, R. (1998) “The Agenda for Growth Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 22: 497–520.
Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1974) “Neoclassical vs Evolutionary Theories of Economic Growth,” Economic Journal 84. 336: 886–905.
Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1977) “In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation,” Research Policy 6. 1: 36–76.
Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Robinson, J. (1972) “The Second Crisis of the Economic Theory,” American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings 62. 2: 1–10.
Romer, P. (1994) “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8. 1: 3–22.
Rosenberg, N. (1976) Perspectives on Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism. Socialism and Democracy, Allen and Unwin, London.
Silverberg, G. and B. Verspagen (1995) “Evolutionary Theorizing on Economic Growth,” IIASA Working Paper, no. 95078.
Solow, R. (1957) “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics 39. 3: 312–320.
Teece, D. (1988) “Technological Change and the Nature of the Firm,” in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp. 256–281.
Winter, S. (1964) “Economic Natural Selection and the Theory of the Firm,” Yale Economic Essays 4: 225–272.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Eparvier, P. Some Comments on the Methodological Principles of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 1, 221–234 (2005). https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.1.221
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.1.221