Evolutionary Paradigms in the Social Sciences

Abstract

Change usually occurs imperceptibly and out of sight, so that it becomes hard to grasp and think about in a systematic fashion. We are most effectively alerted to the fact of change when its pace accelerates, and in particular when change manifests itself in the form of crises. The recent collapse of the Communist system in Eastern Europe is one such sign of crisis, because for a time that system stood for one of the directions of social change, a systemic alternative that at times it seemed a permanent feature, possibly even embodying a winning strategy. Another development of wide portent is rapid economic expansion of East Asia. At such times minds search for explanations of what they observe happening but cannot handle and seemingly can do little about. To some, such crises herald the dawn of a new age of democracy and peace; others observe a flare-up of ethnic strife and anticipate world chaos. That is when new theories of transformation arise and old ones are refurbished for the occasion. That is when and how new social science paradigms are either built or rediscovered. One such paradigm that might help us comprehend rapidly changing reality is an evolutionary one. It is distinguished by a well-grounded intellectual tradition in almost all the major disciplines, among them sociology (August Comte, Herbert Spencer, Talcott Parsons), archaeology (Gordon Childs), and philosophy (Karl Popper, Donald Campbell). Among the most elaborated contributions to such thought have been those in economics, involving such major figures as Thorstein Veblen, Friedrich von Hayek, andJoseph Schumpeter. Evolutionary economics has experienced a particularly notable growth in recent years. While rich, this tradition might not currently possess the coherence and the complexity of other paradigms in the social sciences. The present collection, a sample of papers presented at two workshops held at the University of Washington, in May 1994, and May 1995,1 represents a step in the direction of increasing that coherence, and adding to the complexity. It does so both by undertaking comparative assessments of paradigms and of the state of the field, and by attacking some recent problems in international relations and international political economy.