Skip to main content
Log in

Evolutionary alternatives to equilibrium frameworks in economics education

  • Article
  • Published:
Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To have multiple perspectives for analyzing an economy is valuable in and of itself. For the complex system economy, they offer ways for researchers and students alike for developing a more nuanced understanding of socio-economic structures than the economics mainstream framework can accommodate. They allow us to conceptualize economic activity in different ways and show different aspects of economic activities. They can help develop policy frameworks that may permit a more versatile, and also more targeted, set of options for influencing economic processes. They can support the development of differing positions when we consider how to evaluate economic processes and the output range which they produce. For students, learning different perspectives for thinking about how an economy functions, about the role of economic activity and how it is embedded in a physical and social environment can offer numerous advantages over an instruction that is solely focused on one specific perspective and its positive and normative positions. Evolutionary perspectives on economic education and analyses provide an analytical framework that can accommodate the above aspects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinhocker E (2006) The origin of wealth: evolution, complexity, and the radical remaking of economics. Random House Business

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldeman L (2007) The Cult of the Market: Economics Fundamentalism and Its Discontents. ANU E Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles S, Halliday SD (2022) Microeconomics: competition, conflict, and coordination. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpataux J, Crevoisier O (2007) Economic theories and spatial transformations—clarifying the space-time premises and outcomes of economic theories. J Econ Geogr 7(3):285–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrión Álvarez M, Ehnts D (2016) Samuelson and davidson on ergodicity: a reformulation. J Post-Keynesian Econ 39(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chester L (2021) Can régulation theory inform institutional analyses of contemporary social provisioning? J Econ Issues 55(2):359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colander D, Kupers R (2014) Complexity and the art of public policy: solving society’s problems from the bottom up. Princeton University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deane K, van Waeyenberge E, Maxwell R (2019) Recharting the history of economic thought: approaches to and student experiences of the introduction of pluralist teaching in undergraduate economics curriculum. Int J Plur Econ Educ 10(2):137–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis A (2009) Editorial: pluralism in economics education. Int Rev Econ Educ 8(2):6–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez Lacasa I (2019) Technology and institutions in neo-schumpeterian and institutional thinking. Wissenschaftliche Beitrage TH Wildau 23:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner W, Heinrich T, Schwardt H (2014) The microeconomics of complex economies: evolutionary, institutional, neoclassical, and complexity perspectives. Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, F (1844). Outline of a critique of political economy, the marx/engels internet archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm. Accessed 17 Feb 2024

  • Focardi SM (2015) Is Economics an empirical science? If not, can it become one? Front Appl Math Stat. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2015.00007/full#h2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gräbner C, Strunk B (2020) Pluralism in economics: its critique and their lessons. J Econ Methodol 27(4):311–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt GC (1972) Some cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heise A (2020) Ideology and pluralism in economics: a german view. Int J Plur Econ Educ 11(2):114–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo TH (2021) A veblenian critique of nelson and winter’s evolutionary economy. J Econ Issues 55(4):1101–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1993) The origins of order, self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keen S (2001) Debunking economics—the naked emperor of the social sciences. Zed Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee FS (1998) Post-keynesian price theory. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee FS, Jo TH (2018) Microeconomic theory: a heterodox approach. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren K (1991) Evolutionary Phenomena in Simple Dynamics. In: Langton CG, Taylor C, Farmer JD, Rasmussen S (eds) Artificial life II, SFI studies in the sciences of complexity. Addison-Wesley

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey RG, Lancaster K (1956) The general theory of the second best. Rev Econ Stud 24(1):11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall A 1920 (2013) Principles of economics (Palgrave classics in economics). Palgrave Macmillan

  • Mearman A, Wakeley T, Shoib G, Webber D (2011) Does pluralism in economics education make better educated, happier students? A qualitative analysis. Int Rev Econ Educ 11(2):50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski P (1991) More heat than light: economics as social physics, physics as nature’s economics. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard MD, Bylund PL, Clark BB (2021) Keynes and knight on uncertainty: peas in a pod or chalk and cheese. Camb J Econ 45:1099–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1982) Spring cleaning. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG 8(2):175–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer P (2016) The trouble with macroeconomics. https://paulromer.net/trouble-with-macroeconomics-update/WP-Trouble.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2024

  • Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development—an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and business cycle. Harvard Economic Studies

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (2003) Capitalism socialism and democracy. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwardt H (2022) Technology and social rules and norms in neo-schumpeterian economics and in original institutional economics. PSL Quart Rev 75(303):385–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Sent EM (2005) Simplifying herbert simon. History Political Econ 37(2):227–232

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaikh A (1974) Laws of production and laws of algebra: the humbug production function. Rev Econ Stat 56(1):115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1977) Models of discovery and other topics in the methods of science. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1993) Decision making: rational, nonrational, and irrational. Educ Adm Q 29(3):392–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sraffa P (1926) The laws of returns under competitive conditions. Econ J 36(144):535–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler G (1957) Perfect competition, historically contemplated. J Polit Econ 65(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz J (2001) Information and the change in the paradigm in economics, prize lecture, December 8, 2001, https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/stiglitz-lecture.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2024

  • Stiglitz J (2018) Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 34(1–2):70–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Tafner G, Caasper M (2022) Understanding economics does not equal understanding the economy: designing teacher education from a socio-economic perspective. Int J Plur Econ Educ 13(3):277–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen TB (1898) Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Q J Econ 12(4):373–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henning Schwardt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwardt, H. Evolutionary alternatives to equilibrium frameworks in economics education. Evolut Inst Econ Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-024-00275-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-024-00275-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation