摘要: Caldwell (2001. Hodgson on Hayek: a critique, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, 541--55) raises number criticisms Hodgson's (1993. Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Cambridge, UK Ann Arbor, MI, Polity Press University Michigan Press) analysis Hayek. This reply acknowledges the passages in The Constitution Liberty where Hayek discusses evolutionary ideas. It is also agreed that description secondary literature as 'methodological individualist' misleading or flawed. However, it argued Hayek's neglect Malthus remains real problematic. connected to underestimation scale Darwinian intellectual revolution. here Caldwell's attempt justify analytical assumption given individual unconvincing. Copyright 2004, Oxford Press.
unirioja.es
oup.com
herts.ac.uk参考文章(6)
Silvan S. Schweber, The origin of the Origin revisited. Journal of the History of Biology. ,vol. 10, pp. 229- 316 ,(1977) , 10.1007/BF00572644
Scott Gordon, Darwin and political economy: The connection reconsidered Journal of the History of Biology. ,vol. 22, pp. 437- 459 ,(1989) , 10.1007/BF00401577
Sandra Herbert, Darwin, Malthus, and selection. Journal of the History of Biology. ,vol. 4, pp. 209- 217 ,(1971) , 10.1007/BF00356983
Peter Vorzimmer, Darwin, Malthus, and the Theory of Natural Selection Journal of the History of Ideas. ,vol. 30, pp. 527- ,(1969) , 10.2307/2708609
Lamar B. Jones, Schumpeter versus Darwin: In re Malthus Southern Economic Journal. ,vol. 56, pp. 410- ,(1989) , 10.2307/1059219
Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory: The Case for Methodological Individualism Theory and Society. ,vol. 11, ,(1982) , 10.1007/BF00162324