Interdisciplinary modeling: a case study of evolutionary economics

Abstract

Biologists and economists use models to study complex systems. This similarity between these disciplines has led to an interesting development: the borrowing of various components of model-based theorizing between the two domains. A major recent example of this strategy is economists' utilization of the resources of evolutionary biology in order to construct models of economic systems. This general strategy has come to be called ''evolutionary economics'' and has been a source of much debate among economists. Although philosophers have developed literatures on the nature of models and modeling, the unique issues surrounding this kind of interdisciplinary model building have yet to be independently investigated. In this paper, we utilize evolutionary economics as a case study in the investigation of more general issues concerning interdisciplinary modeling. We begin by critiquing the distinctions currently used within the evolutionary economics literature and propose an alternative carving of the conceptual terrain. We then argue that the three types of evolutionary economics we distinguish capture distinctions that will be important whenever resources of model-based theorizing are borrowed across distinct scientific domains. Our analysis of these model-building strategies identifies several of the unique methodological and philosophical issues that confront interdisciplinary modeling.

Models on the move: Migration and imperialism

“…This point is made particularly clear in the excellent discussion of evolutionary biology models being imported into economics provided by Rice and Smart (2011). Rice and Smart discuss two distinct ways in which analogies with biological evolution have been used to construct models in economics.…”

Who is afraid of scientific imperialism?

“…To illustrate this, consider the wide range of studies that from the 1960s onwards have attempted to systematically integrate evolutionary theory and game theoretic models to explain aspects of human behavior formerly investigated by other disciplines (see e.g. Rice and Smart, 2011, for a review). These SI contributions have enhanced crossdisciplinary diversity not just by opening novel research avenues (see e.g.…”

Introduction: The Evolutionary Way of Thinking in Economics

“…6. For a critique of the suggested typology see Rice and Smart (2011). Their critique is misled in so far as they interpret the two features, heuristic and ontology, as necessary conditions for, rather than just characteristics of, evolutionary economic theories.…”