Come back Marshall, all is forgiven? Complexity, evolution, mathematics and Marshallian exceptionalism

Abstract

Marshall was the great synthesiser of neoclassical economics. Yet with his qualified assumption of self-interest, his emphasis on variation in economic evolution, and his cautious attitude to the use of mathematics, Marshall differs fundamentally from other leading neoclassical contemporaries. Metaphors inspire more specific analogies and ontological assumptions, and Marshall used the guiding metaphor of Spencerian evolution. But unfortunately the further development of a Marshallian evolutionary approach was undermined in part by theoretical problems within Spencer's theory. Yet some things can be salvaged from the Marshallian evolutionary vision. They may even be placed in a more viable Darwinian framework.

Dynamic efficiency and economic complexity

“…Instead, his theory was inspired by the evolutionary thought of Herbert Spencer. Therefore, Marshall's economics is closer to biology than to mechanics or physics, which explains why he was more sceptical of the use of mathematics in the elaboration of economic theory (Hodgson, 2013). 2 The term 'Santa Fe' refers to the Santa Fe Institute, a research institute founded in 1984 and based in New Mexico, USA.…”

Veblen, Marshall and neoclassical economics

“…It seems that the tension that Veblen captures using the term neoclassical in the context of his discussion of the trajectory of modern economics he sees as having a broader application. For discussion of Spencer's influence on Marshall see Cook (2009) and Hodgson (2013). For discussion of Spencer's influence on Veblen see Eff (1989).…”

“…Spencer is both evolutionist and hedonist, but it is only by recourse to other factors alien to the rational hedonist scheme, such as habit, delusion, use and disuse, sporadic variation, environmental forces, that he is able to achieve anything in the way of genetic science, it is only by this recourse that he is enabled to enter the field of cumulative change within which the modern post-Darwinian sciences live and move and have their being’ (Veblen, 1908a: 159). Hodgson (2013: 971), reflecting on the influence of Spencer on Marshall, argues that certain ‘Spencerian notions inspired a distinctive social ontology for Marshall’s work’. What is striking when Veblen’s commentary on Marshall is set alongside his note on Spencer is that he argues that at the level of ontology their contributions display the same discrepancy.…”

A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory

“…Hodgson (2004Hodgson ( , 2013b argues that Spencerism should not be equated to social Darwinism, which is an ideological label used by leftist scholars and which should not be used to throw out the evolutionary accounts of society all together. Although Hodgson is right on this, it is hard to deny that Spencerism nourished the social Darwinian thinking in social sciences and political-public discourse, which lends support to the view that social evolution resembles natural evolution represented by the law of the survival of the fittest, that individuals are responsible for their own success or failure, that individuals must adapt to the present system which is assumed to be the 'best of all the possible worlds,' and thereby that any action aiming to change the present system and to curb individual freedom should be avoided(Hofstadter, 1955;Bannister, 1979;Beck, 2013).…”