Search results

Marx is widely regarded today as an “evolutionary” economist. However, what is clear from a close examination of the writings of both Marx and Engels is that they did not actually take Darwin′s theory of natural selection on board. Consequently, if their theory of socio‐economic change is evolutionary, it is not so in a Darwinian sense. Considers the different sense in which the economics of Marx can be regarded as “evolutionary” and the distance between Darwinian and Marxian conceptions of natural or social change.

Present‐day economics is characterised by the fragmentary and reductionist approach that typifies most social sciences. Economists generally fail to recognise that the economy is merely one aspect of a whole ecological and social fabric; a living system composed of human beings in continual interaction with one another and with their natural resources, most of which are, in turn, living organisms. The basic error of the social sciences is to divide this fabric in fragments, assumed to be independent and to be dealt with in separate academic departments (Capra, 1982, pp. 194–5).

This essay explores evolutionary and competence‐based theories of the firm. Evolutionary theories can be regarded as a subset of a wider class of theories, variously described as “capabilities”, “resource‐based”, or “competence‐based” theories of the firm. These contrast with a different set of contractarian theories, emanating largely from the work of Coase. It is argued that the contractarian theories of the firm misleadingly assume given individuals thus neglecting processes of individual learning and transformation. Similarly underestimated is importance of technology and the persistence of variety in firm structure and performance. The genesis of the alternative, competence‐based approach is outlined, including the important subset of “evolutionary” approaches of the Nelson‐Winter type. The paper concludes with a discussion of the relevance of the competence‐based approach to strategic management.

This paper aims to counter the view that Marshall was an opponent of the historical school. This false account has survived and prospered because it has fitted into more general conceptions of intellectual history, held by both orthodox and heterodox economists.

Marshall's affinity with the historical school is established by examining his writings and his relationship with historical school sympathisers in the UK.

It is established that Marshall regarded his work as building on historical school insights, and he repeatedly referred positively to the ideas of the German historical school. It is argued in this paper that Marshall's opposition to the historical school was confined to its anti‐theoretical wing, principally Cunningham. In other important respects Marshall's position was compatible with German and British historicism.

In preceding literature, Marshall's affinities with the historical school have been denied, unacknowledged, or unexplored.

Attempts to consider how a founder has reduced equivocality in relation to support networks and reducing risks, especially in an international environment. Presents the case studies of five Danish and Australian born global companies. Considers different global models and their limitations. Presents the findings of recent surveys in this area. Concludes that internationalization has not been the primary objective in the founding process and gives direction for further research.

John E. Elliott has been a professor of economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles since 1956 when he graduated from Harvard University with a doctorate in economics. In that position at USC, John has distinguished himself not only as a scholar and prolific writer but also as an outstanding teacher. He has received every teaching honour which USC has within its power to bestow. Moreover, John has distinguished himself for his contribution to the wellbeing of the faculty and to the advancement of its efforts to preserve and extend the concept of academic freedom. John E. Elliott was born in the year 1931 and the essays which comprise this Festschrift are written in celebration of his sixtieth birthday. The numerous awards he has received for the high quality of his teaching, for his creativity and innovation in the dissemination of knowledge, his record of books published, articles contributed to scholarly journals, and book reviews, are to be found in his curriculum vitae printed at the end of this work.

Nations are currently facing two big movements: globalization of the market and need for increasing competitiveness. Liberalization and deregulation in international trade, finance and investment have drastically reduced global transaction costs and advanced the integration of global markets. But they have simultaneously restricted a range of domestic economic policy options. Despite so, national competitiveness has to be continuously cultivated, so that a nation can fully make use of comparative advantages in the global market. Then, strongly embedded in socio‐economic conditions, national competitiveness requires highly efficient and effective systems of production that match both domestic socio‐economic and global market conditions. Globalization of the market and developing national competitiveness are basically contradictory: globalization compels the development of mechanisms to generate allocative‐efficiency, while national competitiveness requires the development of systems that strengthen national capability and optimize X‐efficiency embedded in socio‐economic conditions. Coping with the two contradictory trends requires the open and flexible adaptation of existing systems to global market conditions, resulting in path dependent globalization. Recent financial deregulation in Japan is a good example, that shows a painful process of path dependent globalization, maintaining national competitiveness while openly and flexibly transferring socio‐economic conditions to suit to new global conditions.

This paper aims to go beyond a bookkeeping approach to evolutionary analysis whereby surviving firms are better adapted and extinct firms were less adapted. From discussion of the preliminary findings of research into the Hobart pizza industry, evidence is presented of the need to adopt a more traditional approach to applying evolutionary theories with organizational research.

After a brief review of the relevant literature, the preliminary findings of research into the Hobart pizza industry are presented. Then, several evolutionary concepts that are commonplace in ecological research are introduced to help explain the emergent findings. The paper concludes with consideration given to advancing a more consistent approach to employing evolutionary theories within organizational research.

The paper finds that the process of selection cannot be assumed to occur evenly across time and/or space. Within geographically small markets different forms of selection operate in different ways and degrees requiring the use of more traditional evolutionary theories to highlight the causal process associated with population change.

The paper concludes by highlighting Geoffrey Hodgson's Principle of Consistency. It is demonstrated that a failure to truly understand how and why theory is used in one domain will likely result in its misuse in another domain. That, at present, too few evolutionary concepts are employed in organisational research to ensure an appreciation of any underlying causal processes through which social change occurs.

The concepts introduced throughout this paper, whilst not new, provide new entry points for organizational researchers intent on employing an evolutionary approach to understand the process of social change.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).