Some Comments on the Methodological Principles of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory

Abstract

Two main sorts of arguments have been employed by Nelson and Winter to justify the existence of an evolutionary research program. The first corresponds to their wish to propose theories at least as robust as neoclassical ones on the same questions. We highlight that Nelson and Winter tried to avoid incommensurability between neoclassical theories and their own theory. They wanted to prevent neoclassical theories to define their evolutionary analysis as an empirical work complementary to the neoclassical theoretical work. We also underscore that the emphasis put on robustness was motivated by the wish to propose an alternative to neoclassical theories. This element was associated with a second wish which was to propose a representation of technical change that would be better than neoclassical theories. By taking the assumptions and outcomes of non-neoclassical theories into account, Nelson and Winter asserted their dissatisfaction with the neoclassical definition of technical change. For these reasons, we argue that Nelson and Winter’s book was a tentative attempt to propose an evolutionary theory as robust as the neoclassical one but based on a better representation of technical change.