Lost in Translation: Why<scp>G</scp>eneralized<scp>D</scp>arwinism is a Misleading Strategy for Studying Socioeconomic Evolution

Liagouras, George

doi:10.1111/ajes.12041

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This differential elimination may be carried out by some agent or factor in the environment (Hodgson and Knudsen, 2006). Subset selection clearly differs from Darwinian selection, which cannot disregard the reproduction of organisms within a population (Gayon, 2011; Liagouras, 2013).…”

Section: Variation Replication and Selection In Evolving Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation, replication and selection in evolving industries

Grandinetti

2020

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Variation, replication and selection processes are acknowledged as key constructs in studies on how industries evolve, but no theoretical and empirical contributions have applied these key constructs to analyzing industries in specific stages of their history. This paper aims to fill this gap, taking for reference the firm and its strategic action in particular. Design/methodology/approach After delineating and discussing the three processes of interest – variation, replication and selection – this paper analyzes three very different evolutionary contexts: “red” industries, that reached maturity maintaining a polypolistic structure, and that continue to evolve in this phase; the oligopolistic transformation undergone by certain industries; and the emergence of new market spaces around new products developed by firms. Findings Variations are mainly reactions to the competitive environment in the evolution of red industries or environment-modifying in the case of industries evolving toward an oligopoly, and in the creation of new market spaces. Horizontal replication through employee mobility prevails in red industries, while in the other two contexts firms driving the evolution raise barriers to replication, inhibiting both horizontal and vertical replication. While selection does not come about in a new market space as long as the barriers erected by the first comer remain in place, it occurs in the form of subset selection in the other two settings. Originality/value This paper takes an entirely novel approach and proposes a pluralist framing of how industries evolve, interpreting the different evolutionary situations on the strength of the key variables of variation, replication and selection.

show abstract

Section: Variation Replication and Selection In Evolving Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation, replication and selection in evolving industries

Grandinetti

2020

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thomas argues that it is philosophically unnecessary (Thomas, 2018). There has been extensive debate as to whether new ideas from developmental biology change the premises of generalized Darwinism (Hodgson and Knudsen, 2012; Pelikan, 2008; Pelikan, 2011; Liagouras, 2013; Liagouras, 2017; Dollimore, 2014a; Dollimore, 2014b; Hodgson, 2013a; Reydon and Scholz, 2015; Scholz and Reydon, 2013). More broadly, Tang has argued that Generalized Darwinism might be subsumed into generalized evolutionism (Tang, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observations on the leadership of the pharmaceutical and medical technology industry from a generalized Darwinism perspective

Smith¹

2021

IJPHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify leadership behaviours that appear to be salient in life science firms and to explain them as Darwinian adaptations to the particular characteristics of that industry. Design/methodology/approach This work used a pragmatist, inductive, mode 2 research methodology. The method used semi-structured, laddered, qualitative interviews with 23 individuals from 22 firms in the pharmaceutical and medical technology sectors. Findings The work found four aspects of the industry’s external environment that, collectively, distinguish it from other sectors. Further, it found four leadership behaviours that appear to be strongly characteristic of the industry. Further analysis revealed critical antecedents of these behaviours in the form of micro-foundations. Finally, these behaviours and their antecedents appeared to be a Darwinian adaptation to selection pressures created by the external environment. Research limitations/implications The findings of this work are limited to the life sciences sector and do not support generalization beyond this sector. The work has three implications. Firstly, that leadership behaviours can be seen as at least partly sector-specific. Secondly, that the specificity of leadership behaviours appears related to identifiable characteristics of the industry environment. Thirdly, that the principles of generalized Darwinism provide a useful lens for understanding leadership behaviour in this sector. Practical implications This work implies that leadership training and development should recognize the specific industry context of the leader and not assume that leadership behaviour is a general, non-specific set of behaviours. Further, the work implies that appropriate leadership can be more readily enabled by paying attention to certain micro-foundations. Originality/value This work is original in two ways. Firstly, it addresses the leadership behaviours of the life sciences sector specifically. No previous work has done this. Secondly, it applies generalized Darwinism to the topic of leadership, which has not been attempted previously.

show abstract

“…Still, the question of the relationship of generalized Darwinism to non-Darwinian alternatives, like Lamarckism, is beyond the scope of the present article. For more on this point, seeLiagouras (2013).at UNIV NEBRASKA LIBRARIES on June 4, 2016 rrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 The possibility of generalized Darwinism has already been debated ( e.g. Witt 2004; Cordes 2006; Nelson 2007; Vromen 2010; Brown 2013; Liagouras 2013). Still, up to now most of the debate has remained at quite an abstract level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Heterodox Political Economy to Generalized Darwinism

Liagouras

2016

Review of Radical Political Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper focuses on the successive tensions that emerged in Geoffrey M. Hodgson's thought in his passage from political economy to Darwinian social science. The main argument is that Hodgson's tensions have their origins in two fundamental problems: the irrelevance of population thinking in analyzing both social structures and historical processes; and the necessity of different levels of abstraction in biology and social sciences. Hodgson resolves the first tension by shifting the focus of inquiry from the analysis of capitalism to the genesis of a single convention. But afterwards he is unable to come back down from the extremely abstract level of evolving systems (ranging from amoebas to humans) to the analysis of social problems in contemporary capitalism.JEL Classification: A12, B51, B52

show abstract

Lost in Translation: WhyGeneralizedDarwinism is a Misleading Strategy for Studying Socioeconomic Evolution

Cited by 8 publications

References 54 publications

Variation, replication and selection in evolving industries

Variation, replication and selection in evolving industries

Observations on the leadership of the pharmaceutical and medical technology industry from a generalized Darwinism perspective

From Heterodox Political Economy to Generalized Darwinism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About