In this webpage we share the databases, bibliometrical analysis and statistics elaborated in the resarch project dedicated to study the ontological bases of evolutionary economics.
The papers related to this research were presented in internacional seminars (Globelics, 2015-Schumpeter Society Conference, 2016).
The main results of this reseach are two papers. One of the has been published in Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. The other is currently under evaluation process.
Link to published articles:
Different studies have tried to find a common thread that places different evolutionary and neo-Schumpeterian contributions to economic change under one umbrella. Complexity approach can account for a set of attributes that evolutionary economics has been considering, as decentralized interaction, heterogeneous agents, bounded rationality, networks of linkages, non-linear dynamics, divergent paths, disequilibrium and emergent properties. In this regard, the complexity approach could be a theoretical and conceptual starting point that allows the integration of different contributions (Davis 2008; Fontana 2013). In this article, we attempt to show that complexity can also be useful to point out the profound differences between evolutionary strands. This paper analyzes how the ontological evolutionary assumptions of complexity are emphasized with different intensity by different groups of representative contributions of evolutionary economics. We propose that these differences reflect deeper issues related to two major concerns of economic theory: coordination and order vs. transformation and change of economic systems (Dosi and Orsenigo 1988). In this context, the hypothesis of the article is that complexity acts as an umbrella and at the same time as a differentiating criterion of different strands within evolutionary economics, since their ontological assumptions relate differentially to these two concerns. Using a bibliometric methodology, we identify a set of representative contributions for 5 strands of evolutionary economics. Additionally, we analyze how the various dimensions and attributes of complexity ontology are emphasized unevenly by each group of contributions. To show the differences we quote fragments from contributions corresponding to the dimensions and attributes of the complexity and use a set of nonparametric tests to corroborate the significance of the differences in the frequency in which these references appear. The results show that meanwhile groups concerned by coordination are focused on heterogeneity and networks assumptions, groups concerned by transformation stress path dependence and divergent dynamics. Emergent properties are common to all of them.