Essays in evolutionary economic theory of the firm

Abstract

The eight papers in the present collection are submitted for examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of New England. All but one of the papers have been published or accepted for publication either in a learned journal or a collection of papers. The remaining paper is to be submitted to the 'Journal of Evolutionary Economics'. The papers arose initially from a rediscovery of Jack Downie's book, 'The Competitive Process'. Within the context of contemporary evolutionary economic theory, Downie's work comprises an early and remarkably prescient account. Neglect of Downie in the past 15 years of resurgence of interest in evolutionary economics is an important oversight by the profession. The purpose of the set is to show that there is indeed an evolutionary research programme in economics, that Downie's book does provide an early account of that programme, and that the programme has considerable power for explanation and policy making in the field that Downie himself was claiming to enlighten, that is, the microeconomics of markets and competition policy. ... As a whole, I hope the set of papers has strong threads of common ideas and common purposes. To summarise once more, the initial motivation was the pathbreaking work of Jack Downie in creating a model which I assert to be within a framework of ideas now emerging as a general 'Universal Darwinism' (Plotkin, 1994). Major threads are the direct implications of Downie's work, and those of the same school as Nelson & Winter (1982), for the development and use of economic ideas. Downie's own motivation for writing his book, the investigation of the significance of anti-competitive practices for economic performance, makes the use of evolutionary economic theory for the evaluation of competition policy the more striking. Finally, the research agenda implied by an evolutionary perspective may well be rather different from that of a more orthodox perspective, and may be the only worthwhile perspective in the context of rapidly evolving industry structures. Thus, I would argue, the eight papers have a unity of method and purpose which entitle them to stand together as a thesis to be nailed to the door of the cathedral of the discipline.