Abstract
A number of distinguished economists have pointed out that the theoretical approaches dominant today have yet to come to terms with the historical, irreversible, and heterogeneous nature of the industrial societies they purport to deal with.1 Indeed, there seem to be fundamental reasons for this failure. Neoclassical theory, in aggregating capital and presupposing a very special equilibrium process, seems more to obscure than illuminate what is actually going on at the microeconomic level from which its concepts ostensibly are taken. And the post-Keynesian tradition deriving from Sraffa and von Neumann, by working exclusively with so-called long run equilibrium prices, implicitly assumes a single technique over all of history and thereby rules out the analysis of processes of transition (which indeed are the only ones we have known until now in the history of industrial society) involving the appearance and disappearance, the coexistance and differential reproduction (replacement) of distinct capital and consumer goods, natural resources, etc., which in dynamic terms is the ultimate justification for introducing heterogeneity in the first place. The deeper insights of Schumpeter on the disequilibrium process of industrial evolution, and of Keynes, particularly regarding the relationship between expectations and effective demand, have largely failed to find entrance into the mainstream of analytical economics.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allen, P.M. (1975), “Darwinian Evolution and a Predator-Prey Ecology,” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 37, pp. 389–405.
Allen, P.M. (1976), “Evolution, Population Dynamics, and Stability,” Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA, 73, 3, pp. 665–668.
Bertalanfy, L.v. (1962), “General System Theory–A Critical Review,” General Systems, VII, pp. 1–20.
Boulding, K.E. (1978), Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution,Beverly Hills-London.
Boulding, K.E. (1981), Evolutionary Economics,Beverly Hills-London.
Fisher, J.C. and R.H. Pry (1971), “A Simple Substitution Model of Technological Change,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, pp. 75–88.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971), The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Cambridge, Ma.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1976), “Dynamic Economic Models and Economic Growth,” Energy and Economic Myths, New York, pp. 235–253.
Goodwin, R.M. (1967), “A Growth Cycle,” in Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, edited by C.H. Feinstein, London.
Haken, H. (1978), Synergetics: An Introduction-,2nd. ed., Berlin-Heidelberg New York.
Hicks, J.R. (1976), “Some Questions of Time in Economics,” in Evolution, Welfare, and Time in Economics, edited by A.M. Tang et. al., Lexington, Ma.
Jimenez Montano, M.A. and W. Ebeling (1980), “A Stochastic Evolutionary Model of Technological Change,” Collective Phenomena, 3, pp. 107–114.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,Chicago-London.
Lienhard, J.H. (1979), “The Rate of Technological Improvement before and after the 1830s,” Technology and Culture, 20, 3, pp. 515–530.
May, R.M. (1974), Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems,Princeton.
Medio, A. (1975), Nonlinear Models of Economic Fluctuations,unpublished Ph.D. thesis University of Cambridge.
Mensch, G.O., W. Weidlich, and G. Haag (1983), The Schumpeter Clock, Cambridge, Ma. (forthcoming).
Montroll, E.W. (1975), “Social Dynamics and the Quantifying of Social Forces,” Proc.Nat.Aoad.Sci.USA, 75, 10, pp. 4633–4637.
Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1974), “Neoclassical vs. Evolutionary Theories of Economic Growth: Critique and Prospectus,” Economic Journal, 84, pp. 886–905.
Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Ma.
Nicolis, G. and I. Prigogine (1977), Self-Organisation in Non-Equilibrium Systems,New York.
Prigogine, I. (1976), “Order through Fluctuation: Self-Organization and Social System,” in Evolution and Consciousness, edited by E. Jantsch and C.H. Waddington, Reading, Ma., pp. 93–133.
Prigogine, I., P.M. Allen, and R. Hermann (1977), “Long Term Trends and the Evolution of Complexity,” in Goals in a Gloabal Community, vol. 1, edited by E. Laszlo and J. Bierman, New York.
Robinson, J. (1975), “The Unimportance of Reswitching,” and “Reswitching: Reply,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, pp. 32–39, 53–55.
Weidlich, W. and G. Haag (1983), Concepts and Methods of a Quantitative Sociology, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1984 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Silverberg, G. (1984). Embodied Technical Progress in a Dynamic Economic Model: The Self-Organization Paradigm. In: Goodwin, R.M., Krüger, M., Vercelli, A. (eds) Nonlinear Models of Fluctuating Growth. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 228. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45572-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45572-8_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-13349-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45572-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive