"Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?" New Answers to Veblen's Old Question

Evolutionary Economics, Responsible Innovation and Demand: Making a Case for the Role of Consumers

“…Currently, in so-called mainstream economics, the neoclassical school of thought is the dominant paradigm (see also Dobusch and Kapeller 2009;Keen 2011, for further insights). As is generally known, classical mechanics of Newtonian physics has been the inspiring model for neoclassical economics.…”

A Guide to Paradigmatic Self-Marginalization: Lessons for Post-Keynesian Economists

“…In what follows we try to assess why heterodox economic schools in general and PostKeynesians in particular struggle to seriously challenge neoclassical hegemony in economics in spite of the obvious shortcomings of neoclassical theory. While we acknowledge the difficulties for dissenting or minority views posed by the institutional environment and by hegemonial strategies of mainstream researchers in favour of the incumbent paradigm (see Dobusch and Kapeller 2009a;2009b), we also see a substantial tendency of "selfmarginalization" within communities of heterodox economists. A general problem in this context is connected to the notion of paradigmatic change: Do different heterodox schools want to replace the neoclassical dominance (a) with their own school of thought or (b) with a pluralistic conception of economics as a discipline containing (and needing) a variety of theoretical starting points.…”

“…As we describe elsewhere (Dobusch and Kapeller 2009a), economic education and publishing cultures are highly standardized and exhibit positive network effects for those associated with the dominant paradigm, which are unaffected by the current crisis. Two statements of leading economic textbook authors might serve as a first illustration of our observations concerning the paradigmatic stability of the status-quo in economics:…”

Между Государством И Нацией: Дилеммы Политики Идентичности На Постсоветском Пространстве

“…There, Wu argues that "vertical integration serves as often as a means of corporate defense as efficiency" and asks "whether this defense function suggests an alternative explanation to the prevailing theory of the firm as shaped by the relative efficiency of internal and external contracting, which Ronald Coase articulated in 1937". Luckily though, organisation studies is not economics 499 and therefore comprises at least some variety of theoretical approaches. And one approach in particular deals with the defence function of vertical integration, namely the so-called "Resource Dependence Theory" 500 .…”