Home > Uncategorized > Evolutionary and biophysical economics

Evolutionary and biophysical economics

from James Galbraith

The evolutionary and biophysical approach to economic phenomena is not a new thing, and actually long predates the neoclassical orthodoxy from which some believe it now springs. It began with the intellectual interplay of Malthus and Darwin, developed through Marx and Henry Carey and (to a degree) in the work of the German Historical School, brewed and fermented in the pragmatic and pluralist effervescence of late 19th century American philosophy, and achieved a first full articulation in the hands of Thorstein Veblen (1898). It thereafter developed in the Institutionalist tradition of John R. Commons (1934) and Clarence E. Ayres (1944), among many others, and emerged as the dominant intellectual force in American economics under the New Deal. 

The Keynesian and Institutionalist traditions then merged again in North America in the hands of John Kenneth Galbraith (Carter, 2020), and the line of work known as Post Keynesian was pursued by Robert Eisner, Hyman Minsky, Paul Davidson and Wynne Godley; it has now been popularized by William Mitchell, Randall Wray (2006), Stephanie Kelton (2020), Pavlina Tcherneva (2020) and others as Modern Monetary Theory. In Britain the Keynesian cause was carried forward by Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor (1985), Joan Robinson, and others, with close ties to an Italian strain led by Luigi Pasinetti, Pierangelo Garegnani, Mario Nuti and others. The calamity of the great financial crisis is treated in many books and articles, a notable example being Varoufakis, Halevi and Theocarakis (2011). Specific attention to the problem of resource quality originates with Jevons, was developed in the modern era by Meadows et al. (1972) and is advanced today by the biophysical school (Hall and Klitgaard, 2018), (Chen and Galbraith, 2009). A further branch of the Institutionalist approach, with roots in Marx and Keynes, occurred in Development Economics, epitomized by such figures as Albert Hirschman, Raoul Prebisch, Samir Amin and many others, and carried forward still today by (among others) Ha-Joon Chang and Ilene Grabel (2014), Jayati Ghosh, and Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira (2010). One might further identify a branch of transition-economy and China studies, in which the New Pragmatism of Grzegorz Kolodko (2020) figures, along with Isabella Weber’s (2021) path-breaking history of Chinese policy-making. There are many more; applications will vary according to problems.

What is economics? A policy discipline for the real world

  1. Steven Salmony
    August 19, 2021 at 4:51 pm

    The total food supply for human consumption needs to be immediately shared more fairly and equitably. That is the first step. That is where we begin again. Please note that it is only a first step. Other specific actions must be taken simultaneously and subsequently. Our goals are human solidarity, social sustainability and ecological well being of earth. https://countercurrents.org/2021/06/human-population-activity-the-primary-factor-that-has-precipitated-a-climate-emergency-biodiversity-loss-and-environmental-pollution-on-our-watch/

  2. Ken Zimmerman
    August 23, 2021 at 8:55 am

    Wrong starting point. The useful economist is one who engages in the quest for understanding.

  3. yoshinorishiozawa
    August 23, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    I wonder why there are no readers (except Ken Zimmerman) on the basic idea of Jing Chen and James K. Glabraith’s paper:
    A Biophysical Approach to Production Theory.

    It is named as “biophysical approach” to production theory.

    Now let us see how they start their arguments. Their basic formula in Section 2 is

    dS/S = r dt + σ ε √dt (1)

    where S is the unit price of a commodity, t the expected rate of change of price and σ the rate of uncertainty, and ε is a random variable with a standard Gaussian distribution. As the authors explain, this stochastic process generates a formula (5), which is no other thing than Black-Scholes formula for European call options.

    What does this mean? The authors are considering that stock prices (option prices in particular) is the typical example of their “product” or “commodity.”

    It is possible that they can produce a theory of stock exchange market or other financial “commodities”, but it is almost hopeless that this theory can produce a theory of production. Real economy and FIRE (Fiance, Insurance and Real Estate) economy are so different that we cannot understand one by an analogy of the other. In financial market, each transaction is an exchange and produces nothing. Production is essentially different thing than exchange.

    It is also astonishing that Jevons is cited as one of inspirations for Chen and Galbraith’s idea of biophysical economics and their scarcity theory of value. I know that Jevons worked on Coal Problems and raised the physical efficiency questions of production process. But, Chen and Galbraith seem to be forgetting that Jevons was also the father of neoclassical economics in England.

    James Galbraith seems to be a good reviewer of the state of economics and produces many useful comments. However, I believe his proper theory of economics, that is, biophysical economics seems to be based on a very fragile foundations and be developed only by bold analogies. I wonder whether this is sound and sane as a new economics that tries to replace mainstream, essentially neoclassical economics..

  4. yoshinorishiozawa
    August 23, 2021 at 9:00 pm

    The first sentence above should be read as

    “I wonder why there are no readers (except Ken Zimmerman) who pose a doubt on the basic idea of Jing Chen and James K. Glabraith’s paper:”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.