Taking Evolution Seriously: Historical Institutionalism and Evolutionary Theory

Lustick, Ian S.

doi:10.1057/pol.2010.26

Cited by 55 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While this situation persisted for quite some time, there has been a recent revival of evolutionary‐minded social science (e.g., Nelson ). This is due in part to wider‐spread recognition that evolution is not a teleological or goal‐directed process, but merely one whereby individual‐level differences produce population‐level consequences (Lustick , b). Moreover, increasingly influential evolutionary perspectives such as multilevel selection theory have clarified the misimpression that, as implied by the ecological school, evolution is unidirectional and disfavors cooperative social outcomes (e.g., Henrich and Henrich ; Wilson and Wilson ; Wilson et al ).…”

Section: Selected Theories Of Intra‐urban Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical Approaches to Understanding Urban Decline: From Evolutionary Theory to Political Economy…and Back?

Weaver

Holtkamp

2015

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article surveys selected theories of urban growth and decline, from an American shrinking cities perspective, on the backdrop of three key themes. First, urban change is context‐dependent. Second, urban (de)growth processes are multiscalar. And third, growth and shrinkage are not part of a dichotomy but are different realizations of similar underlying processes. Because the relationships between globalization and regional‐ and city‐level urban restructuring tendencies are relatively established in the shrinking cities literature, the present article focuses primarily on sublocal theoretical approaches. This is intended to uncover insights about the mechanisms and bottom‐up constraints that influence the direction of urban change. The review leads to a proposed framework for understanding how urban neighborhoods (do not) respond to internal or external pressures to change. Notably, the framework is partially derived from efforts that seek to re‐ground the study of urban change in evolutionary theory, which in some ways represents a theoretical turn back toward the earliest (ecological) school of thought on urban decline. However, while earlier evolutionary approaches were acontextual and deterministic, the proposed framework emphasizes that analyzing urban change demands attention to multiple spatial scales and location‐specific features, particularly the distribution of social capital within a city.

show abstract

Section: Selected Theories Of Intra‐urban Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Geographical Approaches to Understanding Urban Decline: From Evolutionary Theory to Political Economy…and Back?

Weaver

Holtkamp

2015

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Application beyond this level, however, may be problematic. Surprisingly, this literature was largely missing in Lewis, Steinmo and Lustick's recent calls for 'taking evolution seriously', except that Krasner (1984) was cited in passing by Lustick (2011) and Lewis and Steinmo (2012). What level of interaction between political science and evolutionary theory are Lewis, Steinmo and Lustick actually proposing?…”

Section: Earlier Uses Of Punctuated Equilibrium Theory By Historical mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Evolution Seriously, or Metaphorically? A Review of Interactions between Historical Institutionalism and Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

2015

Political Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid-1980s, political scientists, in particular historical institutionalists, have employed evolutionary theory to study institutional stasis and change. More recently, there have been calls for 'taking evolution seriously'. This article will frame the earlier uses of evolutionary theory by historical institutionalists, and the recent calls for 'taking evolution seriously' into a hierarchy of levels of interaction between natural and social sciences. Put in this perspective, the earlier efforts can be seen as limiting the use of evolutionary theory at the lowest, metaphorical level. On the other hand, the recent calls are striving to advance political science's interaction with biological science to analogous and homologous levels, and even make it part of the larger project of generalizing Darwinism. These are noble scientific explorations. However, they should not lead to an impression that using evolutionary theory metaphorically is necessarily unserious. Keywords: historical institutionalism; Darwinian evolutionary theory; interaction with natural sciencesCoincidentally or not, two separate articles written by political scientists, both containing the phrase 'Taking Evolution Seriously' in the main titles, have appeared in recent years in academic journals in different fields -one in biosciences (Theory in Biosciences) and the other in political science (Polity). The first article, by Orion Lewis and Sven Steinmo (2010), discusses the merits of switching the scientific foundation of political studies from Newtonian physics to Darwinian biology. The second article, by Ian Lustick (2011), argues that a Darwinian evolutionary perspective is particularly valuable for political studies whenever 'history matters'.Application of evolutionary perspective to political studies is in fact nothing new. As early as the mid-1980s, political scientists began to employ the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium to analyze institutional stasis and change, leading to the emergence of historical institutionalism as a major research pillar of political science. Were these earlier applications of evolutionary theory by political scientists not serious enough? What do recent calls for 'taking evolution seriously' actually mean? In what direction are these calls pointing? To tackle these questions, this article will first frame the earlier uses of the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium by historical institutionalists, and the recent calls for 'taking evolution seriously' into a hierarchy of levels of interaction between natural and social sciences, developed by the historian of science I. Bernard Cohen. Put under this philosophy of science perspective, the earlier efforts can be seen as limiting the use of evolutionary theory at the lowest, metaphorical, level. On the other

show abstract

“…Finally, they specify how changes propagate through time. Yet despite this appeal, it is very rare to find a fully fledged application of an evolutionary model in international relations that includes all three necessary components (for attempted exceptions, see contributions in Thompson ; Modelski ; and Lustick ). This is not surprising when we consider the significant obstacles and pitfalls that emerge when evolutionary models are transferred from a biological setting to a social one.…”

Section: Should We Apply Evolutionary Models To Ir?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Darwin's Finches or Lamarck's Giraffe, Does International Relations Get Evolution Wrong?

Gilady

Hoffmann

2013

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the recent 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, we are in the midst of a surge of Darwinian models of social change in international relations and even genetic and sociobiological analyses of politics more generally. But does being correct biologically make the Darwin/Mendel synthesis an appropriate model of change in world politics? This is an open question and one made interesting by the existence of multiple discarded models of biological evolution, most prominent among them being Lamarck's model of inheritance of acquired characteristics. So we can also ask, conversely, does being incorrect biologically disqualify a model for use in international relations? In this article, we explore this question by examining the challenges of evolutionary analysis and analyzing Lamarckian evolution side by side with Darwinian evolution. If IR is to pursue evolutionary analysis, we argue that Lamarck deserves a second look.

show abstract

Taking Evolution Seriously: Historical Institutionalism and Evolutionary Theory

Cited by 55 publications

References 27 publications

Geographical Approaches to Understanding Urban Decline: From Evolutionary Theory to Political Economy…and Back?

Geographical Approaches to Understanding Urban Decline: From Evolutionary Theory to Political Economy…and Back?

Taking Evolution Seriously, or Metaphorically? A Review of Interactions between Historical Institutionalism and Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

Darwin's Finches or Lamarck's Giraffe, Does International Relations Get Evolution Wrong?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About