Hayekian evolution reconsidered: a response to Caldwell

Geoffrey Hodgson ()

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2004, vol. 28, issue 2, 291-300

Abstract: Caldwell (2001. Hodgson on Hayek: a critique, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, 541--55) raises a number of criticisms of Hodgson's (1993. Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics, Cambridge, UK and Ann Arbor, MI, Polity Press and University of Michigan Press) analysis of Hayek. This reply acknowledges the passages in The Constitution of Liberty where Hayek discusses evolutionary ideas. It is also agreed that the description in the secondary literature of Hayek as a 'methodological individualist' is misleading or flawed. However, it is argued that Hayek's neglect of Malthus remains real and problematic. This neglect is connected to Hayek's underestimation of the scale of the Darwinian intellectual revolution. It is also argued here that Caldwell's attempt to justify Hayek's analytical assumption of the given individual is unconvincing. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2004
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:cambje:v:28:y:2004:i:2:p:291-300

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().