Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics: Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 2—Spring 2002—Pages 23– 46
Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics
Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter
M odern economic analysis, oriented toward understanding the workings

of economies that make extensive use of markets, came into existence
with three guiding questions, all central in Adam Smith’s (1776 [1937])
The Wealth of Nations. One question concerned order. Without any central authority
guiding and commanding action, how is economic activity coordinated? The
second question was the challenge of explaining the prevailing constellation of
prices, inputs and outputs. What explains the price of labor and the rent of land?
The third question addressed the processes of economic progress, or development.
Smith and other early economists clearly were impressed by the inventiveness, the
energy and the growing productivity generated by the evolving market economy.
How to understand its dynamics?
The first two questions have defined continuing central concerns of the
discipline of economics since they first were posed over two centuries ago. When
not posed in the context of an economy that is understood as in the process of
developing, they seem to pull the focus of theorizing toward equilibrium condi-
tions. The third question, concerned with the processes driving economic progress,
pulls the theorizing toward an evolutionary orientation. The question of economic
development has waxed and waned in centrality to the discipline, as has the
importance of evolutionary theorizing.
During the first several decades of the twentieth century, evolutionary thinking
and language was widespread in economics. But as one contrasts the economic
y Richard R. Nelson is George Blumenthal Professor of International and Public Affairs,

Columbia University, New York, New York. Sidney G. Winter is Deloitte and Touche Professor
of Management, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Their e-mail addresses are 具[email protected]典 and 具[email protected]典,
respectively.
24 Journal of Economic Perspectives
textbooks and journals from prior to World War II with after, it is clear that while
economics before the war still contained many evolutionary strands and concepts,
these seemed to vanish in the early postwar period. What happened?
The central factor, we believe, was the increasing fixation of neoclassical
economic theory on equilibrium conditions (as contrasted with, for example,
Alfred Marshall’s considerable attention to economic dynamics) and the mathe-
matical formulation of that theory (Hicks and Allen, 1934; Samuelson, 1947). It
became the standard view that microeconomic theory was about equilibrium
conditions. That theory treated questions about economic progress awkwardly and
pushed them to the side.
A corollary of this shift was a subtle but important change in the connotations
of “profit maximization.” In earlier writings, the striving for profits was a standard
assumption about business motivation, but mathematically stated theories inter-
preted it as true optimization with a sharply defined opportunity set. No longer was
it legitimate to think of firms as gradually groping, innovating or evolving toward
more profitable ways of doing things. Similarly, no longer was equilibrium treated
in terms of where the economy was tending, but rather where it was actually
located. Analysis of deviations from equilibrium was considered difficult and un-
convincing, and such analysis tended to be repressed.
One consequence was that it became very difficult to theorize about compe-
tition as a dynamic process. The Schumpeterian notions of what competition was
about in technologically dynamic industries, which captured the attention of many
industrial organization economists in the early postwar era, had to be treated
outside the context of mainline microeconomic theory (for example, see the
treatment and references in Scherer, 1980). Another consequence was that when
the attention of economists again turned to economic growth, the apparently
natural way to formulate a growth theory was to build a simple dynamic into a
neoclassical formulation, preserving the assumptions that firms correctly maxi-
mized profits and that the economy as a whole was in continuing (moving)
equilibrium (Solow, 1956; 1957). This theoretical formulation was of course
sharply at odds with the arguments of Joseph Schumpeter that capitalist economic
growth had to be understood as a process involving disequilibrium in a fundamen-
tal way.
In recent years, evolutionary arguments have begun to come back into eco-
nomics, at least around the fringes of the field. This change is partly the result of
a growing awareness that standard neoclassical theory cannot deal adequately with
the disequilibrium dynamics involved in the kind of competition one observes in
industries like computers or pharmaceuticals or, more broadly, with the processes
of economic growth driven by technological change. These topics again have come
to the center of attention, and an evolutionary theory is a natural approach to
them. In some degree, the return of evolutionary arguments results from new
analytic tools that permit evolutionary theories to be determined with the rigor
economists have come to require.
In this review, we seek to suggest the appeal of an evolutionary approach to
Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter 25
economics. We begin by exploring what is different about an evolutionary theory.

Some economists have proposed that, in fact, evolutionary arguments are sub-
sumed by neoclassical conclusions about the characteristics of economic equilibria.
In response, we argue that the situation here is more complex than many econo-
mists seem to believe and that an evolutionary theory differs in essential ways from
contemporary neoclassical theory. Next, we review the behavioral foundations of
the evolutionary approach, stressing its reliance on a cumulative learning-based
view of organizational competence and its emphasis on the development of capa-
bilities at the level of the broader society.
We then turn to two particular areas where, we think, the recent renaissance
of evolutionary thinking has made a substantial contribution. One is focused on
organizations, generally business firms, on the nature of the routines that guide
their action, on how effective routines are developed and how they are changed
over time. This strand of evolutionary thinking leads into a theory of competition
among firms in industries where innovation is important and of firm and industry
dynamics. The other strand focuses on the broader question of how better routines
and more effective ways of doing things get created and spread. This thread of
analysis leads into a theory of technological and institutional change and economic
growth. In the concluding sections, we briefly discuss the evolutionary approach to
formal modeling and the implications of evolutionary theorizing for interdiscipli-
nary dialogue.
Evolutionary Processes and Neoclassical Outcomes
Many neoclassical economists seem to hold the view that an evolutionary

theory of firm and industry behavior and a neoclassical one really amount to the
same thing. In this, they follow a path Milton Friedman blazed in a famous essay on
methodology. Friedman wrote (1953, p. 22):
Let the apparent immediate determinant of business behavior be anything at

all— habitual reaction, random chance or what not. Whenever this determi-
nant happens to lead to behavior consistent with rational and informed
maximization of returns, the business will prosper and acquire resources
with which to expand; whenever it does not the business will tend to lose re-
sources . . . . [G]iven natural selection, acceptance of the hypothesis [of max-
imization of returns] can be based largely on the assumption that it summa-
rizes appropriately the conditions for survival.
As was noted by Koopmans (1957, p. 140), this statement leaves open the question
of why one would prefer a theory that conflicts with the “apparent immediate
determinant(s) of business behavior” if in fact it is possible to build a theory directly
upon what appear to be the actual determinants of business behavior, the condi-
tions for survival. But in practice, Friedman’s argument has served as an
instrumental myth, encouraging neoclassical theorists to get on with their business

and discouraging the pursuit of any more unified approach to firm and industry
behavior, evolutionary or otherwise.
Is it possible to support neoclassical predictions with process accounts con-
structed on evolutionary foundations? Yes, it is possible to specify a set of restrictive
assumptions on the “neoclassical predictions” and the “evolutionary processes” so
that the outcomes of the latter will match the neoclassical predictions (Winter,
1964, 1971; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Hodgson, 1994). Of course, this research
program also offers counterexamples that illustrate what happens when certain
restrictive assumptions are abandoned.
Before noting some of the specific assumptions that are necessary for
evolutionary processes to support neoclassical outcomes, it is worth noting one
broad concern about this entire enterprise. If the analysis concerns a hypothet-
ical static economy, where the underlying economic problem is standing still, it
is reasonable to ask whether the dynamics of an evolutionary selection process
can solve it in the long run. But if the economy is undergoing continuing
exogenous change, and particularly if it is changing in unanticipated ways, then
there really is no “long run” in a substantive sense. Rather, the selection process
is always in a transient phase, groping toward its temporary target. In that case,
we should expect to find firm behavior always maladapted to its current envi-
ronment and in characteristic ways—for example, out of date because of
learning and adjustment lags, or “unstable” because of ongoing experimenta-
tion and trial-and-error learning. We argue that, in reality, the broader currents
of historical change in the socioeconomic system are forever imposing exoge-
nous change on the economic subsystem, posing new and unfamiliar problems
to firms. To capture the phenomena characteristic of this reality requires a fully
dynamic analysis.
However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the economic problem
is static, in the sense that the evolution of business firm behavior constitutes the
only systematically dynamic element. Then, one can pose the question of whether
in the long run, the system approaches an equilibrium in which market level
outcomes are the same as they would be if all firms were consistent profit maxi-
mizers. (Of course, firm-level outcomes will generally be different because some
firms disappear by virtue of their failure to maximize.) Such an argument neces-
sitates addressing four major considerations: variety, behavioral continuity, profit-
induced growth and limited path dependence.
The problem of variety is that for the selection process to arrive at a neoclassical
destination, the existing firms must represent a wide enough variety of strategies
and actions that the profit-maximizing neoclassical behavior is represented—if only
by accident. An argument that firms systematically fail to explore certain ranges of
feasible action identifies a departure from the neoclassical standard that cannot be
addressed by appeal to the selection argument. As Alchian (1950, p. 220) empha-
sized: “What really counts is the various actions actually tried, for it is from these
that success is selected, not from some set of perfect actions.” Hence also,
Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics 27
evolutionary economists emphasize that a system promoting a variety of experi-

mental solutions to economic problems may perform better than one in which the
same imperfect rationality guides every firm.
The behavioral continuity assumption reflects the point that it does matter
whether firm behavior arises from systematic and persistent causes or merely
reflects “random chance or what not.” Behavioral continuity might take the form of
persistence in actions, in rules of action or something else (with differing specific
implications). In general, if the winners of the competitive struggle at time t have
nothing that commends them as strong contenders at t ⫹ 1, it is not helpful that
the system rewards their earlier success by placing additional resources at their
disposal.
As Friedman (1953) suggested, the natural selection argument is based on
profit-induced growth; that is, successful firms earn profits and expand. But responses
to profits are discretionary at the level of the firm. If the winners of the struggle at
t will not accept a larger role at t ⫹ 1, rewarding their success contributes nothing
toward improving the efficiency of the system. Further, this larger role must
embody behavioral continuity with the sources of prior success; otherwise, again,
nothing systematic is accomplished by conferring more resources on successful
firms. For example, if successful firms are overly eager to diversify, forever under-
taking new activities that they may not be good at, evolutionary progress is
undercut.
The natural selection story also clearly contemplates that some firms may
fail on the way to equilibrium; indeed, it requires the failure of the less efficient
firms. But the story will not reach the desired conclusion if transient conditions
eliminate the very firms needed to support the neoclassical equilibrium. Since
both the challenges and the behavioral responses to out-of-equilibrium condi-
tions may be quite different from those of equilibrium, this possibility can
certainly arise. Thus, some additional assumption assuring limited path depen-
dence is needed.
With the above checklist in view, it is not particularly hard to generate
theorems detailing circumstances and senses in which evolutionary processes can
support neoclassical predictions with respect to market outcomes and surviving
firm actions in the long run. For example, to deal with the possibility of lack of
sufficient variety of behavior and the concern that path dependence may cause the
premature elimination of certain types before equilibrium is reached, one can
assume continuing entry of firms with a variety of rules, so that the required variety
exists indefinitely.
While it is not difficult to construct successful models with these kinds of
assumptions, it is hard to derive from such results much confidence in the conclu-
sions of neoclassical analysis of economic reality. To begin with, the accumulating
evidence from behavioral decision research and other sources suggests that certain
departures from rational decision norms may be very typical, calling into question
the “variety” assumption (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; Thaler, 1992; Schwartz,
1998).1 Also, assuming constant entry raises the possibility of continuing entry of
inefficient firms, which could disrupt the tendency to neoclassical equilibrium.2
Moreover, assuming that entrants can display a wide range of high competencies is
very dubious if one believes, as evolutionary economists tend to, that the achieve-
ment of high competence depends on sustained learning from experience.
In short, if evolutionary processes are to lead to neoclassical results, the list of
conditions is demanding, the articulation of these conditions is often delicate and
the reassuring implications are narrow at best.
We do not, however, consider the analysis summarized above simply as an
effort to dispose of an error of overstatement. Instead, we follow the Koopmans
(1957) suggestion and accept Friedman’s (1953) defensive move as a valuable hint
at a positive research agenda. Mainstream neoclassical conclusions about the
virtues of market arrangements rest foursquare on the comprehensive rationality of
individual agents. Neoclassical economics discovers social virtue in human selfish-
ness, but not virtue that is robust against the human limitation of incompetence—
and the possible role of the market process in achieving that robustness is not
featured.3 However, if the conditions just stated do tend to hold, they form a major
piece of a persuasive account of how a market economy might be able to achieve
impressive results in spite of limitations on the rationality of individual agents.
Conversely, where the conditions do not hold, they might help to explain why the
market economy may perform poorly.
In the context of such an affirmative research program, the meanings of the
four conditions mutate significantly; they become topics for investigation, not
theoretical assumptions. With regard to variety, for example, the question becomes
whether enough variety is generated to accomplish the effective exploration of new
technological and organizational territories. The postulate of behavioral continuity
is a keystone of the evolutionary program because its general plausibility is sup-
ported by much organizational research. But the details matter a great deal; below
we return to this subject and its connection to learning. The extent to which profits
induce growth in a “more of the same” sense is a key empirical question from an
evolutionary point of view, as is the issue of path dependence. How often does it
happen that significant innovations arise before their time, are squelched by a
hostile environment and then are lost or reappear only with great delay? Thus, all
four of the conditions present significant issues for evolutionary analysis.
1
For a striking application of behavioral decision research to economics involving the “optimism bias,”
see the experimental work on entry decisions by Dosi and Lovallo (1997) and Camerer and Lovallo
(1999).
2
There is a delicate analytical issue here; see Winter (1971) for one resolution.
3
We take note here of two adjacent literatures. There is a significant theoretical and empirical literature
on industry and firm dynamics with heterogeneous firms (exemplified by Jovanovic, 1982; Hopenhayn,
1992; Ericson and Pakes, 1995; Pakes and Ericson, 1998). This work is not concerned with “robustness
against incompetence,” nor with evolution considered as the unfolding of a fundamentally unknown
future. By contrast, the evolutionary games literature is quite compatible with ours on the question of
rationality and foresight, but mainly does not share the substantive focus on firms and industries. See
Dosi and Winter (2002) for some comments on connections to the evolutionary games literature.
Competence, Learning and Routines
The positive program of evolutionary economics must be built on a view of

economic behavior that is plausible in its own terms and has substantial specific
content. The view of economic behavior that follows is rooted in our book, An
Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Nelson and Winter, 1982), which in turn
draws on many earlier sources. Over the past two decades, that basic view of the
behavioral foundations of evolutionary theory has been supported, refined and
extended by a variety of research contributions. In this section and the next, we
frame the problem and then discuss how the basic behavioral continuity issue can
be addressed in terms of skills, routines, learning and cognition.
We begin at a very impressionistic level with what we call the “competence
puzzle.” Mainstream economic theory typically sees rationality as undifferentiated,
inhering in the actor at a uniformly high level and independent of the situation the
actor confronts. The specific kind of rationality that economists usually build into
their theories typically implies, or at least connotes, careful deliberation and
attempted foresight. Real actors, however, simply do not have the vast computa-
tional and cognitive powers that are imputed to them by optimization-based
theories. Organizational decision processes, in particular, often display features
that seem to defy basic principles of rationality and sometimes border on the
bizarre.4 Yet all of us stake everything from our convenience to our lives on the
ability of individuals and organizations to perform highly complex tasks—many of
which could not be performed at all only a few decades ago. We do this on a daily
basis, with very little thought or concern. Further, this faith is amply justified, at
least if historical comparisons of technical performance and risk levels are relevant.
How can the same organizations be so impressively competent from one
perspective and yet so strikingly “bounded” in their rationality? A serious account
of the role that organizations play in society should acknowledge the reality of the
competence puzzle and deal with it.
In the evolutionary view, the key to the puzzle lies in the contrasting demands
of different types of situations. High competence is often achievable where skills
and routines can be learned and perfected through practice. For individuals and
organizations (not to speak of animals), learning guided by clear short-term
feedback can be remarkably powerful, even in addressing complex challenges. But
that sort of learning does little to enable sophisticated foresight, logically structured
deliberation and/or the improvisation of novel action patterns—and situations that
demand these are rarely handled well. Further, competence must always be as-
sessed against the background of historically evolving competitive standards. Stan-
dards change; mostly, they rise. Observers tend to see an organization as highly
4
In our experience, few economists are comfortable with the suggestion that the workings of their own
academic departments or universities might illustrate typical characteristics of organizational decision
making; they prefer to think that the locally available data in their nonprofit employers are somehow
special or anomalous. Organizational research does not, on the whole, support them in that view.
competent when the comparison is against the standards of the past or in contexts
where competition is weak. By contrast, strong and up-to-date rivals highlight the
“bounded rationality” of the focal organization. Thus, the evolutionary response to
the competence puzzle focuses on the role of learning and practice and specifically
on the degree of correspondence between the current challenge and the earlier
contexts in which experience trained the actors.
This approach treats organizational and individual competence in similar
terms; we treat organizational routine as the organizational analogue of individual
skill. When rich and relevant information is available to guide action, organizations
often find routinized ways of exploiting it. The ice cream shop does not, after all,
yield to its cognitive limitations and follow the simple rule of stocking only vanilla.
In ice cream shops and elsewhere, technical and organizational innovations have
supported remarkable increases in the product variety that is handled routinely. In
this sense, evolutionary economics explains how behavior can be complex and
effective by pointing out that it is routinized.5
The concept of routines has multiple virtues as a foundation for evolutionary
economics. As just noted, routines provide a focal point for a learning-based answer
to the competence puzzle.6 Most fundamentally, routines are the basis of the
characterization of behavioral continuity in our evolutionary theory: “routines as
genes” is the catch phrase. Nelson and Winter (1982, p. 134) write: “As a first
approximation, therefore, firms may be expected to behave in the future according
to the routines they have employed in the past.”7
Of course, routines persist for a variety of reasons, including an irrational
resistance to change. But there are two reasons that are rational in a broad sense
and also conceptually significant. The first relates to the problem of storing and
accessing knowledge. The common neoclassical economic assumption is that all
techniques along a production function are equally and costlessly accessible today,
regardless of whether or when they have been practiced. Realistically, however,
learning or relearning routines has costs, which rise as the behavior leaves the
domain of recent practice—and this supports the tendency to adhere to prevailing
routines. Second, since every organization is a coalition of sorts, routines almost
necessarily include ways of coping with the occasions for conflict within an orga-
nization, whether between managers and shareholders, or managers and workers,
or managers and managers. Departures from established routines provoke height-
5
This argument about routines is subtly different than the claim, which advocates of a more behavioral
approach to economics often make, that real actors follow “simple rules” rather than performing the
complex calculations imputed to them by economic theory. This idea contains much truth, but it relates
primarily to handling uncertainty about the future and other domains where rich short-term feedback
is not available. It is also true that a routine can be “simple” relative to an infeasibly large optimization
calculation, while being far too complex by practical standards to be called a “simple rule.”
6
When an organization’s “routines” include higher-order routines that govern learning itself, the
evolution of behavior at the level of the organization becomes a complex matter in which the structure
of the problems faced, the structure of the organization and the historical path of the system are all
intertwined.
7
For an extended discussion of the successive approximations, see Winter (1986).
ened anxieties and often involve heightened stakes; conflict therefore tends to be
more intense—a contrast often noted in the context of labor-management strug-
gles over organizing a union as compared to renewal of a union contract. Because
conflict tends to be costly to all participants, there is reason to avoid it by sticking
with established routines.
While a few business firms, and other formal organizations, are very long lived,
analysis of economic development almost always is concerned with much longer
time periods than the life of particular organizations and also has a much broader
institutional scope. Yet the competence puzzle is there, perhaps in even more
striking form, when the question is about the determinants of long-run economic
development. The heart of the economic development puzzle is how the enor-
mously powerful technologies, and effective modes of organization, that character-
ize advanced modern economies could have come about, given the cognitive limits
of individual men and women, and organizations. Actually, Mandeville (1705
[1924]) asked this question almost three hundred years ago as he reflected on
the mighty warships of his day, and his answer is in the spirit of modern eco-
nomic evolutionary theory: it was the work of many minds operating over many
generations.
The general account we have given of how individual skills, organizational
routines, advanced technologies and modern institutions come into being has
stressed trial-and-error cumulative learning, partly by individuals, partly by organi-
zations, partly by society as a whole. We do not deny the vital role played in the
progress of all these variables by the body of knowledge—in modern days often
scientific knowledge—that humankind has accumulated, that directs its problem
solving and makes those efforts powerful. But then one can ask the same question
about the origins of that powerful body of knowledge: how did humans of such
bounded rationality manage to do that? Again, the answer we evolutionary theorists
would give is that it evolved.
Behavioral Continuity: Foundational Issues
In contrast to the usual quest for micro-foundations in economics, seeking

consistency with rationality assumptions, our quest is for consistency with the
available evidence on learning and behavior at both the individual and organiza-
tional levels.
With respect to individual learning, the plausibility of our behavioral founda-
tions for evolutionary economics has received support from an unexpected quarter.
Studies linking cognitive abilities and brain physiology have established the exis-
tence of anatomically distinct memory processes supporting the skilled behavior of
individuals. Skill memory is acquired through practice, activated by the attempt to
perform and not accessible to consciousness in terms of its specific content.8 It

tends to be highly durable and functions in some ways that are alien to theories of
calculative rationality.
In an intriguing experimental study, Cohen and Bacdayan (1994) demon-
strated connections between the characteristics of skill memory at the individual
level and some widely noted phenomena associated with organizational routines. In
their study, subjects used playing cards in a two-person cooperative game of
moderate complexity. The objective of each team was to manipulate the cards into
a specified goal configuration in the minimum possible time. As subjects played the
game repeatedly, they became more and more efficient at recognizing the needed
moves and making them quickly. In one variant of the experiment, the experi-
menters then confronted such experienced teams with a modified game in which
the roles of the red and black playing cards were interchanged—with otherwise
identical rules. Theorizing based on rationality certainly suggests that interchang-
ing the card colors should have little effect, since the new game is a simple
isomorphism of the one already learned. However, as often happens in much larger
organizations, the subject teams had difficulty with this seemingly minor adjust-
ment of their prevailing routines. The consequence of interchanging the roles of
red and black cards was an initial efficiency decline on the order of 25 percent; one
pair had failed to progress much toward its previous efficiency after 40 more plays.
This result has many counterparts in the literature on transfer of learning: a close
logical connection between a learned task and a newly presented task does not
necessarily indicate a potential for easy transfer.9
These and many related results suggest that the micro-foundations of our
routine-based perspective do reflect the realities of human physiology and cognitive
functioning. At the least, this is true for routines that involve a substantial amount
of skilled behavior at the individual level. However, other aspects of behavioral
continuity perhaps do not derive from the same sources. In particular, continuity
derives from sustained commitments to organizational strategies and heuristics that
presumably involve higher-level cognitive processes in the individuals involved.10 In
a still broader context, cognitive frameworks and paradigms are known as a source
of long-lasting influence and continuity for both scientific disciplines and industrial
technologies (Kuhn, 1970; Dosi, 1982).
Recent work by Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) provides a striking illustration of
8
“Skill memory” is also sometimes known as “procedural memory” or “nondeclarative memory.” See
Squire (1987) for a discussion of the substantive distinctions and the relevant terminology. Skill memory
can also be usefully compared with what Polanyi (1964) discussed as “tacit knowledge.”
9
Empirical evidence on routines and related organizational knowledge issues is gradually accumulating;
it is quite diverse in type and source. Space does not permit a review of this literature. We mention here
some studies that substantially share our theoretical perspective: Helfat (1994), Usselman (1993),
Zander and Kogut (1995), Narduzzo, Rocco and Warglien (2000), Szulanski (2000); the latter two are
among several relevant studies presented in Dosi, Nelson and Winter (2000).
10
We say “perhaps” and “presumably” here because, so far as we are aware, the extent to which there
are underlying physiological mechanisms linking skill memory and other cognitive functions remains
unknown.
the impact of inherited strategies. They studied the processes that led Polaroid to
stumble in its attempted transition to digital imaging. Beginning in the early 1980s,
Polaroid’s management made digital imaging technologies a strategic priority,
shifted the composition of its technical personnel and invested substantially in
research and development. Polaroid developed superior sensor technology and
had a prototype digital camera by 1992. However, Polaroid didn’t get a digital
camera to market until 1996 and seems to have mishandled the marketing and
distribution. By the late 1990s, Polaroid had dropped the digital camera and
divested the digital imaging system it had developed for the medical diagnostics
market.
Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) document the key role played in this story by the
“razor/razor blades business model.” In the past, Polaroid had sold cameras
cheaply to promote the highly profitable film. The (simple) idea that you don’t
make money on the camera turned out to have a tighter grip on the company than
the (complex) chemical film technology. As a result, Polaroid passed up the
opportunity to hasten its digital camera to market while it sought alternatives
compatible with its traditional business model. This was not a matter of mindless,
automatic response, but of systematically flawed calculation.
The literatures of management and business history report numerous similar
episodes, though few so carefully documented as this one. For example, a number
of commentators have noted the paradoxical fact that IBM—the leading informa-
tion technology company in the world—was strategically blindsided in the early
1990s by the emerging implications of a by then familiar technology, the micro-
processor (for example, Fransman, 1994).
The idea that the habits of management thought channel strategic choices is
not a radical new discovery of the evolutionist camp. The challenge, however, is to
build a theoretical structure that is capable of making effective use of that insight,
exploiting this aspect of behavioral continuity for purposes of explanation and
prediction in specific cases. We believe that evolutionary theory provides an ac-
commodating framework for such an effort, though most of the actual work
remains to be done.
Evolutionary Analysis of Schumpeterian Competition
Even as modern neoclassical theory took a firm grip on abstract economic

thinking, it was clear to many empirically oriented scholars of industrial economics
that this theoretical formulation could not come to grips with the nature of
competition they saw in a number of industries where technological innovation was
important. Schumpeter’s (1950) complaint says it very well:
But in the capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not
that kind of [price] competition which counts, but the competition from the
new commodity, the new technology . . . . This kind of competition is as much
more effective than the other as bombardment is in comparison with forcing

a door.
Scholars working in or near the evolutionary tradition have given considerable

attention to these Schumpeterian themes. Indeed, one major area of application of
evolutionary thinking has been the dynamic analysis of economic change at the
organization and the industry level, particularly in contexts where innovative
performance is a key element in the competitive struggle. This central problem is
simultaneously about the returns to innovation, the sustainability of competition,
the role of entrepreneurial start-ups, the distribution of firm size, the determinants
of market structure and many other questions. These topics play to the strengths of
the evolutionary approach, both in their emphasis on learning and because they
abjure imputing rational foresight to actors who are encountering historical
novelties.
In our 1982 book, we explored several different questions about Schumpe-
terian competition. In the model presented there, the organized research and
development efforts of firms are the source of innovation. There are lags before an
innovation can be imitated in the model, but no patent protection. Large firms
tended to spend more on R&D than did smaller firms. Successful innovation
tended to enhance the profitability of a firm, in an absolute amount proportional
to its scale, and thus to lead to that firm’s growing larger and to spending more on
R&D.
A central question regarding Schumpeterian competition is whether, through
mechanisms like these, competition has a tendency to self-destruct and give way to
long-lasting monopolies. In our models, such a tendency did exist. However, it was
checked by some opposing tendencies, including in particular one that depended
on the sources of technological change.
When the ultimate dynamic for change comes from outside the industry, as in
the case where change comes from the external development of science, or
innovations by equipment suppliers, the function of R&D within the industry is
essentially to identify new opportunities and to adapt and to commercialize them.
In such a technological regime, which we called “science based,” the fact that a firm
has been a successful innovator today does not necessarily position it favorably to
seize the important opportunities that will be presented tomorrow. In the contrast-
ing case, technological change is “cumulative” at the firm level in the sense that
efforts to advance technology today build from what the firm achieved yesterday. In
our early simulation studies, the tendency for a dominant firm to emerge and
continue to dominate was enhanced when technological advance was cumulative.
In this case, firms that are behind have little chance to leapfrog the leader. On the
other hand, in the science-based regime, a smaller firm would sometimes seize a
new technological possibility before its larger rival, beating the unfavorable odds
imposed by the size discrepancy, and ultimately catch up both in size and R&D
spending.
In recent years, an originally quite separate strand of evolutionary economic
analysis has come to join the one just described. This body of research explores the
historical evolution of industries, often by looking at the co-evolution of technology
and industry structure, with a focus on whether a natural industry “life cycle”
exists.11 The industry life cycle hypothesis was originally put forth by James Utter-
back and William Abernathy (1975; see also Abernathy and Utterback, 1978) in a
history of the American automobile industry. Their underlying theoretical story
goes this way. When a technology is new, there is uncertainty both about how the
technology can improve and about what the customers really want. Both kinds of
uncertainty make it hard to say which paths of development would be successful in
meeting the needs better. Different inventors and firms lay their bets in different
ways. New innovators and firms keep entering the industry, trying new things, and
innovators and companies that have tried and failed go broke and leave. With time
and accumulated efforts, one pathway or a set of pathways turns out to be effective,
and the products of the new technology begin to attract a significant market. A
“dominant design” gradually emerges. Firms whose products exemplify that dom-
inant design do well, and firms that are producing something else either have to
switch over, which is not easy to do, or they fail. With product design more
stabilized, it becomes profitable for research and development to focus on process
innovation. More firms in the business tend to become increasingly skillful, and
potential entrants are increasingly at a visible disadvantage. Entry slows down, while
exit remains at high levels for a while. The number of firms in the industry
diminishes, sometimes sharply, even as output growth accelerates. Typically, a
relatively small number of large firms come to dominate the scene.
While this account of the industry life cycle is clearly not universally applicable,
the validity of its principal generalizations has been documented for a number of
industries.12 Recent work by Steven Klepper and various collaborators has mapped
the general phenomenon (Klepper and Graddy, 1990; Klepper, 1997), elaborated
the theoretical logic (Klepper, 1996) and demonstrated its relevance for tires
(Klepper and Simons, 2000a), television sets (Klepper and Simons, 2000b) and
other industries.13 The recent volume edited by Mowery and Nelson (1999) con-
tains a number of detailed industry histories and explores, among other matters,
the extent to which the industry life cycle seems to fit. It does in several of the
industries studied.
Recently, Klepper has focused on the backgrounds of the entrants in various
industries (Klepper and Sleeper, 2000), strongly confirming the role of various
forms of prior exposure to the knowledge base relevant to the industry (Winter,
11
One of the problems with this literature is that the level of analysis is sometimes unclear. Sometimes
the analysis seems to shift among an industry life cycle, a product life cycle or a technology life cycle. This
fuzziness may reflect, in part, the fact that similar mechanisms are operating at different levels and on
different time scales.
12
Lasers are one example of a technology that does not display the typical patterns, probably because
of the fragmentation of the market for applications.
13
While Klepper’s theoretical view is close to our own, his account of firm behavior in the short run is
more in terms of myopic profit maximization than of observed behavioral regularities.
1984). Not all entrants bring such knowledge advantages with them, but those who
do not tend to be at a disadvantage.
This account of the industry life cycle provides a useful and important
perspective on the points about variety and path dependence raised earlier. Variety
tends to be at a maximum in the early stages of an industry’s history, when major
issues of technology and design remain unresolved. The move toward a dominant
design exemplifies economic natural selection at work— destroying variety. Indus-
try dynamics include self-reinforcing mechanisms that create path dependence,
making it impossible for the system to return to earlier branch points and “recon-
sider.” Thus, an important part of the evolutionary testing of firm behaviors by the
marketplace is compressed into the early design stages of industry evolution. In a
mature industry, the evolutionary process may not have much variety to work with.
Of course, the “life cycle” of an industry is not an inexorable process of aging.
Renewal may come on the winds of the “perennial gale of creative destruction” that
Schumpeter celebrated. If the leaders cannot be challenged on the ground of the
cumulative technology they have built, more fundamental challenges may arise to
upend them, coming from outside the industry. Such episodes provide illustrations
of the logic of our science-based case; developments exogenous to the focal
industry have endowed some entrants with new competitive weapons that the
incumbents do not possess.
The technology and management literatures have given a lot of attention to
struggles between new firms and incumbents. A number of relevant causal factors
have been identified and persuasively argued to be critical in particular cases.
Incumbents are said to be more at risk when innovative change affects the “archi-
tecture” of the system, as opposed to its “components” (Henderson and Clark,
1990). Paralleling our distinction between the “science-based” and “cumulative”
cases, it has been argued that incumbents are not likely to be threatened when new
technology is “competence enhancing”— drawing on the skills and capabilities
developed previously— but they are when it is “competence destroying” (Tushman
and Anderson, 1986). When incumbents control key specialized assets that are
complementary to the new technology, they may be able to make advantageous
deals to access the technology or, at least, to gain time to build their own capabil-
ities (Teece, 1986; Tripsas, 1997; Henderson, Orsenigo and Pisano, 1999). Incum-
bents who focus too narrowly on prevailing applications of a basic technology may
leave niches open in which entrants can extend the technology and ultimately
mount a broader threat (Christensen and Rosenbloom, 1995; Christensen and
Bower, 1996; Christensen, 1997).
All of these studies are compatible with and illustrative of the evolutionary
perspective. None display a logic in which foresight plays a key role; in some, the
weakness of foresight is a featured consideration. All take for granted strong
elements of continuity in firm behavior, so that a firm’s fate is determined in the
first approximation by how the environment rewards its heritage of routines, and
only in the second approximation do abilities to adapt and to change enter the
story.
The theory, the empirics and the reality of Schumpeterian competition have
all evolved over the years. In his earlier work, specifically, The Theory of Economic
Development, Schumpeter (1911 [1934]) emphasizes the role of individual entre-
preneurs and new firms. His later work Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (Schum-
peter, 1950) says that innovation has been “routinized” and now comes from the
R&D laboratories of the large corporations. Schumpeter’s two views of the role of
entrants provided the basis for an extension of the science-based/cumulative
contrast into the notion that industries differ in their “technological regimes”—
broadly, the conditions affecting the availability and advance of relevant knowledge
(Winter, 1984). Several authors have employed this concept in trying to account
empirically for the way innovative entry varies in importance across industries (for
example, Malerba and Orsenigo, 1990; Breschi, Malerba and Orsenigo, 2000;
Marsili, 2001; Shane, 2001). In the quarter century after World War II, most readers
of Schumpeter, ourselves included, believed that the regime supporting the large
corporate R&D lab was the modern regime, while the individual entrepreneur with
a new firm was largely a thing of the past. The history of the last few decades clearly
indicates that that judgment was premature. Today, a number of industries are
experiencing rapid technological advance where entrepreneurial start-ups whose
innovations are based largely on the work of one or a few individuals play a
prominent role and offer significant competitive threats to larger firms. In many of
these cases, the technology tends to be science based.
The analysis of science-based regimes involves a number of interesting ques-
tions, including the linked issues of the vertical scope of entrants and the possible
recombination of capabilities through mergers and acquisition. The early history of
biotech—the quintessential “science-based” case, but also a quintessential “comple-
mentary assets” case—is now available as a vivid illustration of how these various
themes can play out. This case has attracted the sustained attention of a number of
authors, who analyze it from an evolutionary perspective (Orsenigo, 1995; Mc-
Kelvey, 1996; Henderson, Orsenigo and Pisano, 1999).
Technology, Institutions and Economic Growth
We have highlighted above one of the important strands of research that

evolutionary economic theory strongly influenced: that concerned with under-
standing the behavior of business firms, and their capabilities and limits for
adaptation, in an environment of change. A second important strand has been
concerned with understanding technological advance and economic growth largely
driven by advances in technology.
While most of the literature we have considered in earlier sections has been
focused on business practice, the literatures we describe here are very much
concerned with the advance of the broader bodies of knowledge that constrain
practice, as well as practice itself. New technologies appear and develop not only in
the context of business firms seeking new routines, but also in other contexts, such
as universities, government labs and professional societies. Pursuing the causal

explanation of technological change into these contexts, we find processes that are
again “evolutionary”— but in a broader sense than is suggested by our “routines as
genes” analysis of market competition and industrial dynamics. This section dis-
cusses these broader aspects of economic evolution.
The 1960s were marked by the rekindling of interest in the processes of
technological advance, largely as a result of a series of empirical studies that had
concluded that technological advance was the key driving force behind economic
growth (Schmookler, 1952; Abramovitz, 1956; Solow, 1957). The economists (and
other scholars) who were studying particular inventions or technologies soon
became impressed by several apparently quite general features. First, very consid-
erable uncertainties were involved in trying to achieve a significant advance over
prevailing technology, and the relevant perceptions of these risks could be highly
idiosyncratic. The range of alternatives considered was very much a function of the
particular backgrounds and perceptions of those contemplating the task and so
also the perceived promise of pathways that were actively attended. Second, differ-
ences of opinion and insight among experts in a field were widespread. These
differences generally were manifest in the presence of a variety of different efforts
being made by different parties at any time, in competition with each other and
with prevailing technology. Third, the winners and losers were determined in
competition that often occurred after substantial resource commitments to the
contestants had been made. These features, together, naturally suggested evolu-
tionary language and led to the development of explicit evolutionary theories of
technological advance.
The proposal that technological advance proceeds through an evolutionary
process seems to have been advanced, or rediscovered, independently by several
scholars in several different disciplines. The two of us articulated that proposition
in our first articles on evolutionary theory in the mid-1970s (Nelson and Winter,
1973, 1974, 1977). But by that time, Edwin Mansfield also had recognized the
characteristics we described above and was working with an implicit, if not an
explicit, evolutionary theory (for example, Mansfield, 1968, 1971). So were Chris-
topher Freeman and his colleagues at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)
(for example, Freeman, 1974). Keith Pavitt’s (1999) recent book reflects the
subsequent development of evolutionary thinking at SPRU (see also Dosi and
Freeman, 1988). Nathan Rosenberg’s (1976) writings on the economics of techno-
logical advance had a strong evolutionary flavor. Several historians of technological
advance also came up with similar theoretical arguments (for example, Constant,
1980; Basalla, 1988; Mokyr, 1990; Vincenti, 1990; Petroski, 1992). With a somewhat
different orientation, sociologists studying technological advance also have taken
an evolutionary perspective.
We want to highlight three features of this general body of understanding
here. The first feature is what one might call “the co-evolution of technology and
industry structure.” The other side of the process of different “technological bets”
competing against each other is the story of different firms competing against each
other. A number of studies of industries in which technological innovation is an

important vehicle of competition are basically stories of the playing out of this
co-evolutionary process (for example, Dosi, 1984; Malerba, 1985; Orsenigo, 1995;
Mowery and Nelson, 1999; Bottazzi et al., 2001). Still other aspects of this co-
evolution were discussed in the preceding section, in particular, the tendency for
entry to diminish and the industry to concentrate as a specific technology matures.
Second, these studies reveal that technology must be understood as involving
both a body of artifacts, or practice, and a body of understanding. Some authors
have concentrated on just one of these aspects. Thus, Petroski’s (1992) exploration
of The Evolution of Useful Things is concerned with artifacts, while Constant’s (1980)
focus in The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution is on the broad body of design
understanding. But more generally, artifacts, practice and understanding co-evolve.
Efforts to advance practice are informed by an often impressive body of under-
standing, often scientific understanding. Nevertheless, the process of inventing or
designing is still to some extent “blind,” because efforts to invent something new
almost invariably reach well beyond what is known with certainty. Thus, despite the
often strong knowledge base for advancing technology, the process remains evo-
lutionary. Over time, practice and understanding tend to advance together.
Third, scholars of technological advance have come to recognize the range of
institutions that are involved. Economists have tended to stress the role of business
firms. But other scholars have highlighted the role of university research in many
fields, and increasingly, economists have been looking at universities (Rosenberg
and Nelson, 1994). In many cases, government programs are involved. Recently, a
considerable literature has grown up describing “innovation systems,” which con-
tain different kinds of institutional actors. Economists have written on innovation
systems characterized at the level of a nation (Freeman, 1988; Lundvall, 1992;
Nelson, 1993), an industry (Mowery and Nelson, 1999) or a technology (Carlsson,
1995).
This latter strand of research and writing has been closely associated with the
developing evolutionary analysis of economic institutions (Langlois, 1986; North,
1990; Nelson, 1998; Hodgson, 1999; Nelson and Sampat, 2001). Evolutionary,
institutional and sociological perspectives converge in the view that individual and
organizational behavior tends to be governed by engrained, taken-for-granted
patterns—what we call routines. Increasingly, economists studying institutions are
coming around (returning) to the notion that institutions evolve.
Formal Economic Evolutionary Modeling
A considerable development of formal evolutionary models has run parallel to

the body of empirical work oriented by evolutionary thinking described above.
While it is not practical here to describe these in detail, it is worth noting the
characteristics that differentiate them from formal neoclassical models.
First, formal evolutionary models assume “bounded” rationality, at least in the
sense that actors are not assumed to have accurate foresight (even probabilisti-
cally). At one extreme, the actors simply have a set of routines that determine their
actions that they stick to through thick or thin. Over time, competition winnows out
many of the actors from the ones that survive having routines that cope best with
the environment. Other evolutionary models treat the actors as operating with a
particular set of routines “in the short run,” but as having mechanisms that enable
them to improve routines or to learn about significantly better ones as time elapses
and they gain experience. In any case, the actors are not modeled as having the
capability to “see through” the context in which they are imbedded with sufficient
clarity to be able to determine the best thing to be doing or to understand the
causal structure of their experience. Indeed, most of the economic evolutionary
models are sufficiently complicated so that the modeler or anyone else would have
great difficulty in deducing optimizing strategies for all the actors. It is a basic
premise of economic evolutionary theory that this state of affairs accurately reflects
the problem facing real-world economic actors.
Second, these models generally take the form of dynamic equations that
determine the time paths of firm characteristics and actions taken, as well as the con-
sequences of those actions. Many of them take the form of random walk (Markov)
processes, in high-dimensional state spaces, and often with some time-varying
parameters. Solution paths may include a steady state or a set of them. But the com-
mitment to the underlying behavioral assumptions—as appropriate to the problem—
does not depend on the achievement of a steady state. The modelers typically
sought to analyze behavior and phenomena under out-of-equilibrium conditions.
The models that have been developed fall roughly into two classes. Some are
designed to explore the time paths generated by particular model specifications
and the difference made by varying particular assumptions or parameter values.
Other models have been designed to explain, or to explore theories about, partic-
ular empirical phenomena.
Some examples of exploring model specifications are the evolutionary econ-
omists who have explored economic variants of R.A. Fisher’s “Fundamental Theo-
rem of Natural Selection,” to the effect that the rate of growth of average “fitness”
(profitability) in an industry or a firm is proportional at each point of time to the
share-weighted variance of profitability (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Metcalfe, 1998).
Others have considered the effects of cumulative learning by experience in an
evolutionary model (Silverberg, Dosi and Orsenigo, 1988; Chiaromonte and Dosi,
1993) or explored how the requirement that new technology needs to be embodied
in new capital affects the pattern of output growth (Silverberg and Lehnert, 1993).
Issues of path dependence and “lock-in” have been explored and modeled by
various authors, including Kwasnicki (1996) and Saviotti (1996), following in the
footsteps of Arthur (1989). While the particular aspects being studied are different,
in all of these models, the orientation is quite abstract, with the objective to
illuminate how a particular subprocess or aspect influences the course of an
economic evolutionary process.
An early example of an evolutionary model targeted a specific empirical
phenomena: our own effort dedicated to demonstrating that a formal evolutionary

model could generate, at least qualitatively, the time paths of aggregate output,
inputs, factor prices and measured “total factor productivity” that had been the
subject of the standard growth accounting explanations— explanations that implic-
itly or explicitly assumed that the economic growth process was characterized by a
moving competitive equilibrium (Nelson and Winter, 1974). In a similar spirit,
Gunnar Eliasson and colleagues have developed a very detailed micro-macro model
of the Swedish economy, which aims to “explain” (and partially succeeds in doing
so) a variety of observed patterns at both the macro and micro levels (Eliasson,
1985). Andersen (1994) extends and explores the early simulation models of
Schumpeterian competition. Recently, Malerba et al. (1999) developed an evolu-
tionary model that aimed to capture key mechanisms governing the evolution of
the U.S. computer industry and, thus, to explain the course of industry history.
Evolutionary economists have made substantial use of computer simulation for
stating and investigating their models. We consider such models “formal” in the
sense that the logic is fully explicit and on display—and have listed simulation as
well as analytical models in the discussion above. The uses and limitations of
computer simulation is a large subject, worthy of an essay itself. But among the
relatively noncontroversial claims, we trust, is that a simulation model can provide
an “existence proof” for the ability of a certain sort of dynamical system to produce
results of a characteristic kind. That is precisely the nature of the exercise in the
economic growth model described above and of several models that focus on the
size distribution of firms.
Closely related to the evolutionary modeling efforts just described is a class of
formal models at the level of the individual organization, typically focusing on
related issues of structure, coordination and organizational learning. A major
theme of these efforts is the functioning of behaviorally plausible “local search”
mechanisms for problems where multiple nonlinear interactions create a multi-
plicity of local optima (for example, Margeno, 1992; Levinthal, 1997; Gavetti and
Levinthal, 2000; Marengo et al., 2000).
Evolutionary Economics and Interdisciplinary Discourse
As the economics discipline deepened its commitment to the proposition that

economic actors are rational in the sense of true optimization, an intellectual gulf
appeared that separated economics from its sibling social sciences. Outside of the
territories “colonized” by economics with the tools of rational choice theory, social
scientists tend to be skeptical about the rationality of human action. One charac-
teristic of the new evolutionary economics is that it provides a bridge across the gap.
The particular intellectual barriers attributable to differing rationality assumptions
are lowered significantly (although many other barriers remain). As a result, one
sees considerable interdisciplinary interaction in the areas where evolutionary
economics has taken hold.
The view of firm behavior built into evolutionary economic theory fits well with
the view of firms contained in modern organization theory, especially the part that
shares our own debt to the “Carnegie school” (March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and
March, 1992). The emphasis on the accumulation of firm-specific capabilities has
appealed to business historians as a useful way to frame detailed historical analysis
of the competitive process (Chandler, 1992; Usselman, 1993; Raff, 2000). Similarly,
much research and writing in the field of business strategy feature distinctive
capabilities as the basis of competitive advantage and “dynamic capabilities” as the
key to lasting success in a rapidly changing economy (Teece, Pisano and Shuen,
1997). Indeed, the citations to our 1982 book suggest that the evolutionary ap-
proach has had broad appeal to a wide range of scholars from a variety of different
disciplines working on business organization and strategy.
We noted earlier that scholars in several different disciplines have come to the
proposition that technological advance needs to be understood as an evolutionary
process. Recently, John Ziman (2000) published a book of essays by scholars from
several different disciplines on Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process.
The concept of “innovation systems” also has broad cross-disciplinary appeal.
More generally, evolutionary economics offers great advantages in areas where
interdisciplinary dialogue is needed for progress. As stressed above, this is primarily
because the evolutionary view of firm and organizational behavior, which stresses
the bounds on rationality, is broadly consistent with prevailing views of firm
behavior outside economics. Evolutionary economics therefore has open frontiers,
lives with other disciplines in what is recognizably the same intellectual world and
has much to offer and to gain from trade.
y We are indebted to Brad De Long, Giovanni Dosi, Timothy Taylor and Michael Waldman
for extremely helpful comments and editorial suggestion; more than the usual absolution is
granted. We also acknowledge research support from the Reginald H. Jones Center of the
Wharton School.
References
Abernathy, William J. and James M. Utter- Andersen, Esben S. 1994. Evolutionary Econom-
back. 1978. “Patterns of Innovation in Technol- ics: Post-Schumpeterian Contributions. London: Pin-
ogy.” Technology Review. 80:7, pp. 41– 47. ter.
Abramovitz, Moses. 1956. “Resource and Out- Arthur, W. Brian. 1989. “Competing Technol-
put Trends in the United States Since 1870.” ogies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by His-
American Economic Review. May, 46, pp. 5–23. torical Events.” Economic Journal. March, 99:394,
Alchian, Armen. 1950. “Uncertainty, Evolu- pp. 116 –31.
tion and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Basalla, George. 1988. The Evolution of Technol-
Economy. 58:3, pp. 211–22. ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bottazzi, Giulo et al. 2001. “Innovation and cation to the Semiconductor Industry. New York: St.
Corporate Growth in the Evolution of the Drug Martin’s Press.
Industry.” International Journal of Industrial Organ- Dosi, Giovanni and C. Freeman, eds. 1988. Tech-
ization. July, 19:7, pp. 1161–187. nical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.
Breschi, Stefano, Franco Malerba and Luigi Dosi, Giovanni and Dan Lovallo. 1997. “Ratio-
Orsenigo. 2000. “Technological Regimes and nal Entrepreneurs or Optimistic Martyrs? Some
Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation.” Eco- Considerations on Technological Regimes, Cor-
nomic Journal. April, 110:463, pp. 388 – 410. porate Entries, and the Evolutionary Role of
Camerer, Colin and Dan Lovallo. 1999. “Over- Decision Biases,” in Technological Innovation:
confidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Oversights and Foresights. R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar
Approach.” American Economic Review. 89:1, pp. and Z. B. Shapira, eds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam-
306 –18. bridge University Press, pp. 41–70.
Carlsson, Bo, ed. 1995. Technological Systems Dosi, Giovanni and Sidney G. Winter. 2002.
and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Au- “Interpreting Economic Change: Evolution,
tomation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Structures and Games,” in The Economics of
Chandler, Alfred D. 1992. “Organizational Ca- Choice, Change and Organizations: Essays in Memory
pabilities and the Economic History of the In- of Richard M. Cyert. M. Augier and J. March, eds.
dustrial Enterprise.” Journal of Economic Perspec- Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.
tives. Summer, 6:3, pp. 79 –100. Dosi, Giovanni, Richard R. Nelson and Sidney
Chiaromonte, Francesca and Giovanni Dosi. G. Winter. 2000. The Nature and Dynamics of Or-
1993. “Heterogeneity, Competition and Macro- ganizational Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
economic Dynamics.” Structural Change and Eco- sity Press.
Eliasson, Gunnar. 1985. The Firm and Financial
nomic Dynamics. June, 4:1, pp. 39 – 63.
Markets in the Swedish Micro-to-Macro Model: The-
Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The Innovator’s
ory, Model and Verification. Stockholm: IUI.
Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms
Ericson, Richard and Ariel Pakes. 1995.
to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
“Markov-Perfect Industry Dynamics: A Frame-
Christensen, Clayton M. and Joseph L. Bower.
work for Empirical Work.” Review of Economic
1996. “Customer Power, Strategic Investment
Studies. January, 62:1, pp. 53– 82.
and the Failure of Leading Firms.” Strategic Man-
Fransman, Martin. 1994. “Information, Knowl-
agement Journal. 17:3, pp. 197–218.
edge, Vision and Theories of the Firm.” Indus-
Christensen, Clayton M. and Richard S.
trial and Corporate Change. 3:3, pp. 713–58.
Rosenbloom. 1995. “Explaining the Attacker’s
Freeman, Christopher. 1974. The Economics of
Advantage: Technological Paradigms, Organiza-
Industrial Innovation. Hammondsworth, En-
tional Dynamics, and the Value Network.” Re-
gland: Penguin.
search Policy. 24:2, pp. 233–57. Freeman, Christopher. 1988. “Japan: A New
Coase, Ronald. 1960. “The Problem of Social National System of Innovation?” in Technical
Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics. October, 3, Change and Economic Theory. G. Dosi, C. Freeman,
pp. 1– 44. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete, eds. Lon-
Cohen, Michael and Paul Bacdayan. 1994. don: Pinter, pp. 330 – 48.
“Organizational Routines are Stored as Proce- Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of
dural Memory.” Organization Science. 5:4, pp. Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Econom-
554 – 68. ics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3– 43.
Constant, Edward W. 1980. The Origins of the Gavetti, Giovanni and Daniel Levinthal. 2000.
Turbojet Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins “Looking Forward and Looking Backward: Cog-
University Press. nitive and Experiential Search.” Administrative
Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March. 1992. Science Quarterly. 45:1, pp. 113–37.
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, Mass.: Hayek, Friedrich A. 1988. The Fatal Conceit.
Blackwell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Demsetz, Harold. 1967. “Towards a Theory of Helfat, Constance E. 1994. “Evolutionary Tra-
Property Rights.” American Economic Review. 57: jectories in Petroleum Firm R&D.” Management
347, pp. 347–59. Science. 40:12, pp. 1720 –747.
Dosi, Giovanni. 1982. “Technological Para- Henderson, Rebecca and Kim Clark. 1990.
digms and Technological Trajectories.” Research “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration
Policy. 11:3, pp. 147– 62. of Existing Product Technologies and the Fail-
Dosi, Giovanni. 1984. Technical Change and In- ure of Established Firms.” Administrative Science
dustrial Transformation: The Theory and an Appli- Quarterly. 35:1, pp. 9 –30.
Henderson, Rebecca, Luigi Orsenigo and ged Landscapes.” Management Science. July, 43,
Gary Pisano. 1999. “The Pharmaceutical Indus- pp. 934 –50.
try and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Lundvall, Bengt-Aake, ed. 1992. National Sys-
Exploring the Interactions among Scientific, In- tems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
stitutional and Organizational Change,” in and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Malerba, Franco. 1985. The Semiconductor Busi-
Industries. D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson, eds. ness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 267– Malerba, Franco and Luigi Orsenigo. 1990.
311. “Technological Regimes and Patterns of Innova-
Hicks, John R. and Roy G. D. Allen. 1934. “A tion: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation
Reconsideration of the Theory of Value.” Eco- of the Italian Case,” in Evolving Technology and
nomica. 1, pp. 52–76, 191–219. Market Structure. A. Heertje, ed. Ann Arbor: Uni-
Hodgson, Geoffrey. 1994. “Optimisation and versity of Michigan Press, pp. 283–305.
Evolution: Winter’s Critique of Friedman Revis- Malerba, Franco et al. 1999. “‘History-Friendly’
ited.” Cambridge Journal of Economics. August, Models of Industry Evolution: The Computer
18:4, pp. 413–30. Industry.” Industrial and Corporate Change. March,
Hodgson, Geoffrey. 1999. Evolution and Insti- 8:1, pp. 1–36.
tutions. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Mandeville, Bernard 1705 [1924]. The Fable of
Hopenhayn, Hugo A. 1992. “Entry, Exit and the Bees. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Firm Dynamics in Long Run Equilibrium.” Mansfield, Edwin. 1968. Industrial Research and
Econometrica. September, 60:5, pp. 1127–150. Technological Innovation. New York: Norton.
Jovanovic, Boyan. 1982. “Selection and the Mansfield, Edwin. 1971. Research and Innova-
Evolution of Industry.” Econometrica. May, 50:3, tion in the Modern Corporation. New York: Norton.
pp. 649 –70. March, James and Herbert Simon. 1958. Orga-
Klepper, Steven. 1996. “Entry, Exit, Growth nizations. New York: Wiley.
and Innovation Over the Product Life Cycle.” Margeno, Luigi. 1992. “Coordination and Or-
American Economic Review. June, 86:3, pp. 562– 83. ganizational Learning in the Firm.” Journal of
Klepper, Steven. 1997. “Industry Life Cycles.” Evolutionary Economics. December, 2:4, pp. 313–
Industrial and Corporate Change. 6:1, pp. 145– 81. 26.
Klepper, Steven and Elizabeth Graddy. 1990. Marengo, Luigi et al. 2000. “The Structure of
“The Evolution of Industries and the Determi- Problem-Solving Knowledge and the Structure
nants of Market Structure.” RAND Journal of Eco- of Organizations.” Industrial and Corporate
nomics. Spring, 21:1, pp. 27– 44. Change. December, 9:4, pp. 757– 88.
Klepper, Steven and Kenneth L. Simons. Marsili, Orietta. 2001. The Anatomy and Evolu-
2000a. “The Making of an Oligopoly: Firm Sur- tion of Industries: Technological Change and Indus-
vival and Technological Change in the Evolution trial Dynamics. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
of the U.S. Tire Industry.” Journal of Political McKelvey, Maureen. 1996. Evolutionary Innova-
Economy. August, 108:4, pp. 728 – 60. tions: The Business of Biotechnology. Oxford: Ox-
Klepper, Steven and Kenneth L. Simons. ford University Press.
2000b. “Dominance by Birthright: Entry of Prior Metcalfe, J. Stanley. 1998. Evolutionary Econom-
Radio Producers and Competitive Ramifications ics and Creative Destruction. London: Routledge.
in the U.S. Television Receiver Industry.” Strate- Mokyr, Joel. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Techno-
gic Management Journal. 21:10-11, pp. 997–1016. logical Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford:
Klepper, Steven and Sally Sleeper. 2000. “En- Oxford University Press.
try by Spinoffs.” Working Paper, Carnegie Mel- Mowery, David C. and Richard R. Nelson, eds.
lon University. 1999. Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1957. Three Essays on the Seven Industries. New York: Cambridge University
State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scien- Narduzzo, Alessandro, Elena Rocco and
tific Revolutions, Second Edition. Chicago: Univer- Massimo Warglien. 2000. “Talking About Rou-
sity of Chicago Press. tines in the Field: The Emergence of Organiza-
Kwasnicki, Witold. 1996. Knowledge, Innovation tional Capabilities in a New Cellular Phone Net-
and Economy: An Evolutionary Exploration. Chel- work Company,” in The Nature and Dynamics of
tenham, U.K.: Elgar. Organizational Capabilities. G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson
Langlois, Richard, ed. 1986. Economics as a and S. G. Winter, eds. New York: Oxford Univer-
Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. sity Press, pp. 27–50.
Levinthal, Daniel. 1997. “Adaptation on Rug- Nelson, Richard R., ed. 1993. National Innova-
tion Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: riety and the Economy. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward
Oxford University Press. Elgar.
Nelson, Richard R. 1998. “The Agenda for Scherer, F. Michael. 1980. Industrial Market
Growth Theory: A Different Point of View.” Cam- Structure and Economic Performance. Chicago: Rand
bridge Journal of Economics. July, 22:4, pp. 497– McNally.
520. Schmookler, Jacob. 1952. “The Changing Ef-
Nelson, Richard R. and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. ficiency of the American Economy.” Review of
“Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shap- Economics and Statistics. 34, pp. 214 –31.
ing Economic Performance.” Journal of Economic Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1911 [1934]. The The-
Behavior and Organization. January, 44:1, pp. ory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard
3–54. University Press.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Social-
1973. “Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Eco- ism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
nomic Capabilities.” American Economic Review. Schwartz, Hugh. 1998. Rationality Gone Awry?
May, 63, pp. 440 – 49. Westport, Conn.: Prager.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. Shane, Scott. 2001. “Technology Regimes and
1974. “ Neoclassical vs. Evolutionary Theories of New Firm Formation.” Management Science. 47:9,
Economic Growth: Critique and Prospectus.” pp. 1173–190.
Economic Journal. December, 84:336, pp. 886 – Silverberg, Gerald and Doris Lehnert. 1993.
905. “Long Waves and ‘Evolutionary Chaos’ in a Sim-
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. ple Schumpeterian Model of Embodied Techni-
1977. “In Search of Useful Theory of Innova- cal Change.” Structural Change and Economic Dy-
tion.” Research Policy. January, 5, pp. 36 –76.
namics. 4:1, pp. 9 –37.
Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter.
Silverberg, Gerald, Giovanni Dosi and Luigi
1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Orsenigo. 1988. “Innovation, Diversity and Dif-
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
fusion: A Self-Organisation Model.” Economic
North, Douglas. 1990. Institutions, Institutional
Journal. December, 98:393, pp. 1032– 054.
Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:
Smith, Adam. 1776 [1937]. The Wealth of Na-
Cambridge University Press.
tions. New York: Modern Library.
Orsenigo, Luigi. 1995. The Emergence of Biotech-
Solow, Robert M. 1956. “A Contribution to
nology. London: Pinter.
the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Jour-
Pakes, Ariel and Richard Ericson. 1998. “Em-
nal of Economics. February, 70, pp. 65–94.
pirical Implications of Alternative Models of
Solow, Robert M. 1957. “Technical Change
Firm Dynamics.” Journal of Economic Theory.
and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review
March, 79:1, pp. 1– 45.
Pavitt, Keith. 1999. Technology, Management of Economics and Statistics. August, 39, pp. 312–20.
and Systems of Innovation. Cheltenham, U.K.: Ed- Squire, Larry R. 1987. Memory and Brain. New
ward Elgar. York: Oxford University Press.
Petroski, Henry. 1992. The Evolution of Useful Szulanski, Gabriel. 2000. “Appropriability and
Things. New York: Alfred Knopf. the Challenge of Scope: Banc One Routinizes
Polanyi, Michael. 1964. Personal Knowledge: To- Replication,” in The Nature and Dynamics of Orga-
wards a Post-Critical Philosophy. New York: Harper nizational Capabilities. G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson and
& Row. S. G. Winter, eds. New York: Oxford University
Raff, Daniel M. G. 2000. “Superstores and the Press, pp. 69 –98.
Evolution of Firm Capabilities in American Teece, David J. 1986. “Profiting from Techno-
Bookselling.” Strategic Management Journal. Octo- logical Innovation.” Research Policy. 15:6, pp.
ber/November, 21, pp. 1043– 059. 285–305.
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1976. Perspectives on Tech- Teece, David, Gary Pisano and Mary Shuen.
nology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Man-
Rosenberg, Nathan and Richard Nelson. agement.” Strategic Management Journal. 18:7, pp.
1994. “American Universities and Technical Ad- 509 –33.
vance in Industry.” Research Policy. 23:3, pp. 323– Thaler, Richard H. 1992. The Winner’s Curse:
48. Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. New
Samuelson, Paul A. 1947. Foundations of Eco- York: Free Press.
nomic Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni- Tripsas, Mary. 1997. “Unraveling the Process
versity Press. of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets
Saviotti, Paolo. 1996. Technological Evolution, Va- and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Indus-
try.” Strategic Management Journal. Special Sum- Williamson, Oliver. 1985. The Economic Institu-
mer Issue, 18, pp. 119 – 42. tions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Tripsas, Mary and Giovanni Gavetti. 2000. Winter, Sidney G. 1964. “Economic ‘Natural
“Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence Selection’ and the Theory of the Firm.” Yale
from Digital Imaging.” Strategic Management Jour- Economic Essays. Spring, 4, pp. 225–72.
nal. October, 21:10-11, pp. 1147–161. Winter, Sidney G. 1971. “Satisficing, Selection
Tushman, Michael and Philip Anderson. 1986. and the Innovating Remnant.” Quarterly Journal
“Technological Discontinuities and Organiza- of Economics. May, 85, pp. 237– 61.
tion Environments.” Administrative Science Quar- Winter, Sidney G. 1984. “Schumpeterian
terly. September, 31, pp. 439 – 65. Competition in Alternative Technological
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1974.
Regimes.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Or-
“Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and
ganization. September/December, 5, pp. 287–
Biases.” Science. 185, pp. 1124 –131.
320.
Usselman, Steven W. 1993. “IBM and its Imi-
Winter, Sidney G. 1986. “The Research Pro-
tators: Organizational Capabilities and the
gram of the Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Or-
Emergence of the International Computer In-
dustry.” Business and Economic History. Winter, 22, thodox Critique and Evolutionary Perspective,”
pp. 1–35. in Handbook of Behavioral Economics. B. Gilad and
Utterback, James M. and William J. Aber- S. Kaish, eds. Greenwich, Conn.: PAI Press, pp.
nathy. 1975. “A Dynamic Model of Process and 155– 88.
Product Innovation.” Omega. 3:6, pp. 639 –56. Zander, Udo and Bruce Kogut. 1995 “Knowl-
Veblen, Thorstein. 1898. “Why is Economics edge and the Speed of Transfer and Imitation of
Not an Evolutionary Science?” Quarterly Journal Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test.”
of Economics. 12, pp. 373–97. Organization Science. 6:1, pp. 76 –92.
Vincenti, Walter G. 1990. What Engineers Know Ziman, John, ed. 2000. Technological Innovation
and How They Know It. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. University Press.
This article has been cited by:
1. André Luiz Quadros. 2022. The evolution of the nuclear emergency response plan using mechanisms
of learning, innovation and communication. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences 10:3A. . [Crossref]
2. Nieves Arranz, Marta F. Arroyabe, Jun Li, Carlos F. A. Arranz, Juan Carlos Fernandez de Arroyabe.
2022. An integrated view of eco‐innovation in the service sector: Dynamic capability, cooperation and
corporate environmentalism. Business Strategy and the Environment 27. . [Crossref]
3. Pierre-Alexandre Balland, Tom Broekel, Dario Diodato, Elisa Giuliani, Ricardo Hausmann, Neave
O'Clery, David Rigby. 2022. Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity. Research Policy
51:8, 104568. [Crossref]
4. Valter Afonso Vieira, Robert Mayberry, James Boles, Julie Johnson-Busbin, Rita Cassia Pereira. 2022.
The mediating role of cooperative norms in the formation of buyer commitment in the buyer–seller
relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 18. . [Crossref]
5. Yueping Du, Huanhuan Wang. 2022. Green Innovation Sustainability: How Green Market Orientation
and Absorptive Capacity Matter?. Sustainability 14:13, 8192. [Crossref]
6. Roberto Grandinetti. 2022. A Routine-Based Theory of Routine Replication. Sustainability 14:14,
8254. [Crossref]
7. Pradeep Ray, Sangeeta Ray, Vikas Kumar. 2022. A knowledge-based view of emerging market firm
internationalization: the case of the Indian IT industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 81. .
[Crossref]
8. Peter J Phillips, Gabriela Pohl. 2022. Information, Uncertainty & Espionage. The Review of Austrian
Economics 34. . [Crossref]
9. Agyemang Rama, Bekolo Ngoa Celestin, Shuangying Chen, Konan Martin. 2022. Assessment of Eco-
Innovation Drivers within the Informal Sector in Ghana. Sustainability 14:11, 6903. [Crossref]
10. Ilgaz Arikan, Ipek Koparan, Asli M Arikan, Oded Shenkar. 2022. Dynamic capabilities and
internationalization of authentic firms: Role of heritage assets, administrative heritage, and signature
processes. Journal of International Business Studies 53:4, 601-635. [Crossref]
11. Fabricio Silveira. 2022. Firm size distribution and growth: an empirical investigation. Structural Change
and Economic Dynamics 104. . [Crossref]
12. Canfei He, Shuqi He, Enyi Mu, Jian Peng. 2022. Environmental economic geography: Recent advances
and innovative development. Geography and Sustainability 3:2, 152-163. [Crossref]
13. Mikael Hilmersson, Firouze Pourmand Hilmersson, Sylvie Chetty, Roger Schweizer. 2022. Pace of
innovation and speed of small and medium-sized enterprise international expansion. International
Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 8, 026624262210851. [Crossref]
14. Patrik Aspers, Petter Bengtsson, Alexander Dobeson. 2022. Wie entstehen Märkte? Ein Vergleich
idealtypischer Erklärungsansätze in Ökonomie und Wirtschaftssoziologie. Berliner Journal für
Soziologie 36. . [Crossref]
15. Longjun Liu, Qing Fan, Ruhong Liu, Guiqing Zhang, Wenhai Wan, Jing Long. 2022. How to benefit
from digital platform capabilities? Examining the role of knowledge bases and organisational routines
updating. European Journal of Innovation Management 39. . [Crossref]
16. Pierre-Alexandre Balland, Tom Broekel, Dario Diodato, Elisa Giuliani, Ricardo Hausmann, Neave
O'Clery, David Rigby. 2022. The new paradigm of economic complexity. Research Policy 51:3, 104450.
[Crossref]
17. Radosław Wolniak, Izabela Jonek-Kowalska. 2022. The Creative Services Sector in Polish Cities.
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8:1, 17. [Crossref]
18. Kyriaki I. Kafka, Pantelis C. Kostis, Panagiotis E. Petrakis. 2022. Institutional Effects on Innovation and
the Requirements for Structural Reforms. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 13:1, 211-235. [Crossref]
19. Birger Wernerfelt. 2022. When Does the Underdog Win?. Strategy Science 7:1, 1-9. [Crossref]
20. Manish Bansal. 2022. Economic consequences of IFRS convergence: evidence from phased manner
implementation in India. Journal of Asia Business Studies 28. . [Crossref]
21. Nicola De Liso, Serena Arima, Giovanni Filatrella. 2022. The “sailing-ship effect” as a technological
principle. Industrial and Corporate Change 30:6, 1459-1478. [Crossref]
22. Francisco Brahm, Joaquin Poblete. 2022. Cultural Evolution Theory and Organizations. Organization
Theory 3:1, 263178772110691. [Crossref]
23. Sergey V. Zykov, Dennis V. Dayneko. Theoretical Aspects of Innovation Development and
Institutional Transformations in the Forest Industry 1-15. [Crossref]
24. Robin Clark, Steven O. Kimbrough. On Modeling Evolution in Continuous Spaces 23-42. [Crossref]
25. Sergey V. Zykov. Industry-Wide Case: The Russian Forest Industry 115-138. [Crossref]
26. Oghenovo A. Obrimah. 2022. Progressiveness of increase to utility from socioeconomic activities:
‘Barebones’ necessary conditions. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6:1, 100308. [Crossref]
27. Turan Yay, Gülsün Yay. 2022. Joseph A. Schumpeter and Schumpeterian paradigm on the dynamics
of capitalism: Entrepreneur, innovation, growth, and trade. Panoeconomicus 69:4, 579-607. [Crossref]
28. Jordi Mundó, Soledad Soza, Nayara F. Macedo de Medeiros Albrecht. Privatization and the Governance
of the Commons 35-70. [Crossref]
29. Francisco J. Martínez-López, Yangchun Li, Susan M. Young. Business Model Design for Social Media
Companies 151-167. [Crossref]
30. Neena Sinha, Deepti Prakash, Parul Manchanda. 2022. Sustainability and Business Scalability of an
Indian Social Enterprise. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 13:1, 1-13.
[Crossref]
31. Vivien E. Jancenelle. 2021. Tangible−Intangible resource composition and firm success. Technovation
108, 102337. [Crossref]
32. Ajay Adhikari, Manish Bansal, Ashish Kumar. 2021. IFRS convergence and accounting quality: India
a case study. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 45, 100430. [Crossref]
33. Aticus Peterson, Andy Wu. 2021. Entrepreneurial learning and strategic foresight. Strategic
Management Journal 42:13, 2357-2388. [Crossref]
34. Gino Cattani, Franco Malerba. 2021. Evolutionary Approaches to Innovation, the Firm, and the
Dynamics of Industries. Strategy Science 6:4, 265-289. [Crossref]
35. Giovanni Gavetti, Jose Ramon Lecuona Torras. 2021. A Neo-Carnegie Approach to the Agency
Question: Bridging the Evolutionary and Cognitive Views of Strategy. Strategy Science 6:4, 353-359.
[Crossref]
36. Liney Manjarrés-Henríquez, Odette Chams-Anturi, Jose Luis Hervas-Oliver, Jaider Vega-Jurado.
2021. Conceptual Bases of Innovation Studies: An Analysis from the Micro- and Meso-Perspectives.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 18:07. . [Crossref]
37. Janice Veronica Moorhouse, Ross Brennan. 2021. Controversy and doxa: sustainable food policy and
the English vegetable sector?. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 36:9, 1541-1555. [Crossref]
38. Julien Cusin, Michaël Flacandji. 2021. La reconnaissance des erreurs est-elle un bon argument
commercial ? Les enseignements des commentaires en ligne des clients concernant cinq vidéos
publicitaires. RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise n° 43, Vol. 10:2,
95-110. [Crossref]
39. Francesca Ricciardi, Valter Cantino, Cecilia Rossignoli. 2021. Organisational learning for the common
good: an emerging model. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 19:3, 277-290. [Crossref]
40. Julia Hartmann, Andrew C Inkpen, Kannan Ramaswamy. 2021. Different shades of green: Global
oil and gas companies and renewable energy. Journal of International Business Studies 52:5, 879-903.
[Crossref]
41. Jose Maria Mendoza, Magda Andrea Monsalve Peláez. 2021. Organizational adaptability: A reflection
based on ex-ante, in action and ex-post conditions. Cuadernos de Administración 34. . [Crossref]
42. Antoine Habersetzer, Marcin Rataj, Rikard H. Eriksson, Heike Mayer. 2021. Entrepreneurship in
rural regions: the role of industry experience and home advantage for newly founded firms. Regional
Studies 55:5, 936-950. [Crossref]
43. James T Erbaugh, Christopher W Callahan, Rebecca Finger-Higgens, Melissa DeSiervo, Douglas T
Bolger, Michael Cox, Richard B Howarth. 2021. Sociotechnical stability and equilibrium. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 49, 33-41. [Crossref]
44. Cinzia Daraio. A Framework for the Assessment and Consolidation of Productivity Stylized Facts
69-102. [Crossref]
45. Thomas Holtfort, Andreas Horsch, Joachim Schwarz. 2021. Global fintech entrepreneurship and
its influencing factors: An evolutionary economic analysis. Risk Governance and Control: Financial
Markets & Institutions 11:1, 61-79. [Crossref]
46. Filippo Reale. Grundzüge der Innovationspolitik 843-859. [Crossref]
47. Alexander Ebner. Nationale Innovationssysteme 121-131. [Crossref]
48. Frank Figge, Andrea Stevenson Thorpe, Jason Good. 2021. Us before me: A group level approach to
the circular economy. Ecological Economics 179, 106838. [Crossref]
49. Paulo Henrique Assis Feitosa, Renato de Castro Garcia. 2021. OPORTUNIDADES
TECNOLÓGICAS E DIVERSIFICAÇÃO DAS FIRMAS EM TECNOLOGIAS DE MITIGAÇÃO
DAS MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS. Revista de Economia Contemporânea 25:3. . [Crossref]
50. Yair Berson, Shaul Oreg, Batia Wiesenfeld. 2021. A construal level analysis of organizational change
processes. Research in Organizational Behavior 41, 100148. [Crossref]
51. Tim Fraske, Bernd Bienzeisler. 2020. Toward smart and sustainable traffic solutions: a case study of
the geography of transitions in urban logistics. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 16:1, 353-366.
[Crossref]
52. Christopher Van Den Heuvel, Ping-Jen Kao, Melinda Matyas. 2020. Factors driving and hindering
business model innovations for mobility sector start-ups. Research in Transportation Business &
Management 37, 100568. [Crossref]
53. Pier-Paolo Saviotti, Andreas Pyka¤, Bogang Jun. 2020. Diversification, structural change, and
economic development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 30:5, 1301-1335. [Crossref]
54. Timon Scheuer, Stella Zilian. 2020. Technological Change in an Unstable Labor Market: A Dynamic
System Approach. Journal of Economic Issues 54:4, 1033-1054. [Crossref]
55. Lu Qiu, Die Hu, Yu Wang. 2020. How do firms achieve sustainability through green innovation
under external pressures of environmental regulation and market turbulence?. Business Strategy and the
Environment 29:6, 2695-2714. [Crossref]
56. Yoshinori Shiozawa. 2020. A new framework for analyzing technological change. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 30:4, 989-1034. [Crossref]
57. Yan Zhang. 2020. The map is not the territory: coevolution of technology and institution for a
sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 45, 56-68. [Crossref]
58. Archan Mukhopadhyay, Sagar Chakraborty. 2020. Periodic orbit can be evolutionarily stable: Case
Study of discrete replicator dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 497, 110288. [Crossref]
59. Giorgio Fagiolo, Daniele Giachini, Andrea Roventini. 2020. Innovation, finance, and economic growth:
an agent-based approach. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination 15:3, 703-736. [Crossref]
60. Robert Charles Sheldon, Eric Michael Laviolette, Fabien de Geuser. 2020. Explaining the process
and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship. Journal of
61. Bruno S. Silvestre, Minelle E. Silva, Allan Cormack, Antônio Márcio Tavares Thome. 2020. Supply
chain sustainability trajectories: learning through sustainability initiatives. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 40:9, 1301-1337. [Crossref]
62. Ashish Varma, Kaushal Bhalotia, Karan Gambhir. 2020. Innovating for competitive advantage:
managerial risk-taking ability counterbalances management controls. Journal of Management and
Governance 24:2, 389-409. [Crossref]
63. Eduardo Aguiñaga. 2020. Industrial synergies from “hidden structures”of knowledge. Towards the
foundation of industrial ecosystems. Teuken Bidikay - Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en
Organizaciones, Ambiente y Sociedad 11:16, 91-110. [Crossref]
64. Anna Maria Lis, Jolanta Žemgulienė. 2020. Organisational competence vs transferability of knowledge
in cluster organisations and technology parks. Engineering Management in Production and Services 12:2,
83-98. [Crossref]
65. S. V. Buldyrev, F. Pammolli, M. Riccaboni, H. E. Stanley. The Rise and Fall of Business Firms 35, .
[Crossref]
66. Joseph A. Clougherty, Tomaso Duso, Jo Seldeslachts, Lorenzo Ciari. 2020. Transformational
Strategies and Productivity Growth: A Transformational‐Activities Perspective on Stagnation in the
New‐Normal Business Landscape. Journal of Management Studies 57:3, 537-568. [Crossref]
67. Can Huang, Xiao Chen. Financial Management Transformation in Huawei 171-208. [Crossref]
68. Thomas G. Measham, Lavinia Poruschi, Raymundo Marcos-Martinez. 2020. Fuelling regional
development or exporting value? The role of the gas industry on the Limestone Coast, South Australia.
The Extractive Industries and Society 7:2, 628-638. [Crossref]
69. Patrik Aspers, Petter Bengtsson, Alexander Dobeson. 2020. Market Fashioning. Theory and Society
49:3, 417-438. [Crossref]
70. Nieves Arranz, Marta Arroyabe, Jun Li, Juan Carlos Fernandez de Arroyabe. 2020. Innovation as
a driver of eco‐innovation in the firm: An approach from the dynamic capabilities theory. Business
Strategy and the Environment 29:3, 1494-1503. [Crossref]
71. Maria Carmela Annosi, Antonella Martini, Federica Brunetta, Lucia Marchegiani. 2020. Learning in
an agile setting: A multilevel research study on the evolution of organizational routines. Journal of
Business Research 110, 554-566. [Crossref]
72. Yoonkyo Cho. 2020. The Effects of Knowledge Assets and Path Dependence in Innovations on Firm
Value in the Korean Semiconductor Industry. Sustainability 12:6, 2319. [Crossref]
73. Tamer Khraisha. 2020. Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and
methodological perspectives. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 52, 390-407. [Crossref]
74. Ilgaz Arikan, Asli M. Arikan, Oded Shenkar. 2020. Nation‐dyadic history and cross‐border corporate
deals: Role of conflict, trade, generational distance, and professional education. Strategic Management
Journal 41:3, 422-466. [Crossref]
75. Juliana Subtil Lacerda, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh. 2020. Effectiveness of an ‘open innovation’
approach in renewable energy: Empirical evidence from a survey on solar and wind power. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118, 109505. [Crossref]
76. Theo Notteboom, Dong Yang, Hua Xu. 2020. Container barge network development in inland rivers:
A comparison between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 132, 587-605. [Crossref]
77. Martin Henning, Maureen McKelvey. 2020. Knowledge, entrepreneurship and regional
transformation: contributing to the Schumpeterian and evolutionary perspective on the relationships
between them. Small Business Economics 54:2, 495-501. [Crossref]
78. Franco Malerba, Maureen McKelvey. 2020. Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship
integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics
54:2, 503-522. [Crossref]
79. Ann Hipp, Christian Binz. 2020. Firm survival in complex value chains and global innovation systems:
Evidence from solar photovoltaics. Research Policy 49:1, 103876. [Crossref]
80. Jan-Erik Vahlne, Jan Johanson. 2020. The Uppsala model: Networks and micro-foundations. Journal
of International Business Studies 51:1, 4-10. [Crossref]
81. Sung Joo Bae, Hyeonsuh Lee. 2020. The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects:
Empirical evidence from South Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151, 119826.
[Crossref]
82. Yueqi Wang, Bin Guo. 2020. Managing external knowledge search: the multiple and contingent roles
of absorptive capacity. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 32:1, 29-43. [Crossref]
83. Michela Mingione, Muhammad Kashif, Maria Petrescu. 2020. Brand Power Relationships: A Co-
Evolutionary Conceptual Framework. Journal of Relationship Marketing 19:1, 1-28. [Crossref]
84. Ashton Eaves, Paul Kench, Garry McDonald, Mark Dickson. Balancing Sustainable Coastal
Management with Development in New Zealand 97-118. [Crossref]
85. Alexander Ebner. Nationale Innovationssysteme 1-11. [Crossref]
86. Shaker A. Zahra, Donald O. Neubaum, James Hayton. 2020. What Do We Know About Knowledge
Integration: Fusing Micro- and Macro-Organizational Perspectives. Academy of Management Annals
14:1, 160-194. [Crossref]
87. Bino Paul, Mansi Awasthi. Interplay of Technology and Labour Productivity: Emerging Story of
Consumer Electronics in India 117-143. [Crossref]
88. Alexander Ebner. Governance von Innovationssystemen und die politische Ökonomie der
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit: Innovationspolitische Potenziale des Unternehmerischen Staates 121-146.
[Crossref]
89. Peter Galbács. Methodology…?! Why? 1-76. [Crossref]
90. Luan Carlos Santos Silva, Carla Schwengber ten Caten, Silvia Gaia. Technological Forecasting of
Sustainable Products 1948-1967. [Crossref]
91. Maruf Sanni. An Assessment of the Impact of Barriers on Eco-Innovation Within Small and Medium-
Sized Manufacturing Firms in the Peripheral Regions of Lagos 253-279. [Crossref]
92. Thomas Holtfort. Verhaltens- und evolutionsökonomische Betrachtung von Finanzmarktprozessen
231-248. [Crossref]
93. Vishal K. Gupta. Strategy 139-181. [Crossref]
94. Oghenovo A. Obrimah. 2020. Non-queueing Equilibriums, Innovation Rates, Structure of Economies,
and Venture Capital. SSRN Electronic Journal 31. . [Crossref]
95. Ainul Abdul-Mohsin. The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Competencies, Competitive
Intelligence, and Innovative Performance among SMEs from an Emerging Country 884-906. [Crossref]
96. Stefan Vögele, Witold-Roger Poganietz, Philip Mayer. 2019. How to deal with non-linear pathways
towards energy futures. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 28:3,
20-26. [Crossref]
97. James Lee Caton. 2019. Creativity in a theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Public Policy 8:4, 442-469. [Crossref]
98. N. Arranz, M.F. Arroyabe, Jun Li, J.C. Fernandez de Arroyabe. 2019. An integrated model of
organisational innovation and firm performance: Generation, persistence and complementarity. Journal
of Business Research 105, 270-282. [Crossref]
99. Die Hu, Yuandi Wang, Xue Yang. 2019. Trading Your Diversification Strategy for a Green One:
How Do Firms in Emerging Economies Get on the Green Train?. Organization & Environment 32:4,
391-415. [Crossref]
100. Ademir Rocha, Eduardo Gonçalves, Eduardo Almeida. 2019. Agricultural technology adoption and
land use: evidence for Brazilian municipalities. Journal of Land Use Science 14:4-6, 320-346. [Crossref]
101. Filippo Reale. 2019. Governing innovation systems: A Parsonian social systems perspective. Technology
in Society 59, 101174. [Crossref]
102. Tim Gruchmann, Stefan Seuring, Kristina Petljak. 2019. Assessing the role of dynamic capabilities
in local food distribution: a theory-elaboration study. Supply Chain Management: An International
103. . Bibliography 243-258. [Crossref]
104. Anton Klarin, Pradeep Kanta Ray. 2019. Industrial modernisation through institutional upheaval in a
transition economy. International Journal of Emerging Markets 16:2, 283-302. [Crossref]
105. S. Berg, M. Wustmans, S. Bröring. 2019. Identifying first signals of emerging dominance in a
technological innovation system: A novel approach based on patents. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 146, 706-722. [Crossref]
106. Néstor Fernando Niño Duran, Irma Ruth Camelo, Sergio Andrés Pulgarin Molina. 2019. Modelo
de fiabilidad y validez de la fuerza competitiva de Porter “amenaza de entrantes potenciales”: hallazgos
desde el sector financiero colombiano. Contaduría y Administración 65:2, 164. [Crossref]
107. Victor Ragazzi Isaac, Felipe Mendes Borini, Muhammad Mustafa Raziq, Gabriel R.G. Benito. 2019.
From local to global innovation: The role of subsidiaries’ external relational embeddedness in an
emerging market. International Business Review 28:4, 638-646. [Crossref]
108. Yang, Wang. 2019. Evaluation of Policies on Inappropriate Treatment of Dead Hogs from the
Perspective of Loss Aversion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16:16,
2938. [Crossref]
109. Fatih Canitez. 2019. Urban public transport systems from new institutional economics perspective: a
literature review. Transport Reviews 39:4, 511-530. [Crossref]
110. Paulina Becerra, Darío Gabriel Codner, Dominique Philippe Martin. 2019. Scopes of intervention
and evolutionary paths for argentinian universities transfer offices. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 28:5, 518-535. [Crossref]
111. Jennifer Clark, Supraja Sudharsan. 2019. Firm strategies and path dependencies: an emerging economic
geography of industrial data. Regional Studies 1-13. [Crossref]
112. Dominique Philippe Martin. 2019. Knowledge transfer models and poverty alleviation in developing
countries: critical approaches and foresight. Third World Quarterly 40:7, 1209-1226. [Crossref]
113. Jun Jin, Maureen McKelvey. 2019. Building a sectoral innovation system for new energy vehicles in
Hangzhou, China: Insights from evolutionary economics and strategic niche management. Journal of
Cleaner Production 224, 1-9. [Crossref]
114. Yoram Reich, Eswaran Subrahmanian. 2019. The PSI Network Model for Studying Diverse Complex
Design Scenarios. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1:1,
1283-1292. [Crossref]
115. Juan Ricardo Perilla Jimenez. 2019. Mainstream and evolutionary views of technology, economic
growth and catching up. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 29:3, 823-852. [Crossref]
116. Hardik Bhimani, Anne-Laure Mention, Pierre-Jean Barlatier. 2019. Social media and innovation: A
systematic literature review and future research directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
144, 251-269. [Crossref]
117. Luciano Ferreira da Silva, Arnoldo José de Hoyos Guevara, Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez, Paulo
Sergio Gonçalves de Oliveira. 2019. Evolution toward environment sustainable behavior: search for
survival in the plastic industry in Brazil. Environment, Development and Sustainability 21:3, 1291-1320.
[Crossref]
118. Thomas Holtfort. 2019. From standard to evolutionary finance: a literature survey. Management
Review Quarterly 69:2, 207-232. [Crossref]
119. Laure-Anne Parpaleix, Kevin Levillain, Blanche Segrestin. 2019. Financing the Next Generations
of Innovation: New Dimensions in the Private Equity Model. Journal of Innovation Economics &
Management n° 29:2, 7-41. [Crossref]
120. Nilson Varella Rübenich, Eric Charles Henri Dorion, Luciene Eberle. 2019. Organizational learning
and benchmarking in university technology courses. Benchmarking: An International Journal 26:2,
530-547. [Crossref]
121. Emanuel Adler. World Ordering 36, . [Crossref]
122. . References 173-201. [Crossref]
123. Jan-Erik Johanson. Strategy Formation in Public Agencies 73-100. [Crossref]
124. Filippo Reale. Grundzüge der Innovationspolitik 1-17. [Crossref]
125. Sebastien Meunier, Danni Zhao-Meunier. 2019. Bitcoin, Distributed Ledgers and the Theory of the
Firm. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
126. Marc Jacquinet, Henrique Curado, Ângela Lacerda Nobre, Maria José Sousa, Marco Arraya, Rui
Pimenta, António Eduardo Martins. Management of Tacit Knowledge and the Issue of Empowerment
of Patients and Stakeholders in the Health Care Sector 314-338. [Crossref]
127. Noemi Sinkovics, Samia Ferdous Hoque, Rudolf R. Sinkovics. 2018. Supplier Strategies and Routines
for Capability Development: Implications for Upgrading. Journal of International Management 24:4,
348-368. [Crossref]
128. Tim Gruchmann, Stefan Seuring. 2018. Explaining logistics social responsibility from a dynamic
capabilities perspective. The International Journal of Logistics Management 29:4, 1255-1278. [Crossref]
129. Roberto Grandinetti. 2018. Is organizational evolution Darwinian and/or Lamarckian?. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 26:5, 858-874. [Crossref]
130. Judith Terstriep, Christian Lüthje. 2018. Innovation, knowledge and relations – on the role of clusters
for firms’ innovativeness. European Planning Studies 26:11, 2167-2199. [Crossref]
131. Luis Enrique Valdez-Juárez, Omar Javier Solano-Rodríguez, Dominique Philippe Martin. 2018.
Modes of learning and profitability in Colombian and Mexican SMEs. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research 29:2, 193-203. [Crossref]
132. Margarida Rodrigues, Mário Franco. 2018. Measuring the Performance in Creative Cities: Proposal of
a Multidimensional Model. Sustainability 10:11, 4023. [Crossref]
133. Xiaotong Li, Yongchuan Bao, Yue Guo. 2018. Alliance formation under higher order uncertainty:
Embeddedness, fear, and gradualism. Managerial and Decision Economics 39:7, 821-831. [Crossref]
134. Sidney G. Winter. Organizational Sensing and the Occasions for Strategizing 101-122. [Crossref]
135. Brendan Markey-Towler. 2018. A formal psychological theory for evolutionary economics. Journal of
136. Hwan Jin Kim. 2018. Reconciling Entrepreneurial Orientation and Dynamic Capabilities: A Strategic
Entrepreneurship Perspective. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 27:2, 180-208. [Crossref]
137. Daniela Corsaro. 2018. Crossing the boundary between physical and digital: the role of boundary
objects. IMP Journal 12:2, 216-236. [Crossref]
138. Ilaria Giannoccaro. 2018. Centralized vs. decentralized supply chains: The importance of decision
maker's cognitive ability and resistance to change. Industrial Marketing Management 73, 59-69.
[Crossref]
139. Grazia D Santangelo, Tamara Stucchi. 2018. Internationalization through exaptation: The role of
domestic geographical dispersion in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business
Studies 49:6, 753-760. [Crossref]
140. Stefano Bianchini, Gabriele Pellegrino, Federico Tamagni. 2018. Innovation complementarities and
firm growth. Industrial and Corporate Change 27:4, 657-676. [Crossref]
141. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Juha-Antti Lamberg. 2018. The past and future of evolutionary economics:
some reflections based on new bibliometric evidence. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review
15:1, 167-187. [Crossref]
142. Milan Zafirovski. 2018. Rational Choice Theory or Pretense? The Claims, Equivalences, and
Analogies of the “Economic Approach to Human Behavior”. Sociological Spectrum 38:3, 194-222.
[Crossref]
143. Lalit Manral. 2018. An evolutionary theory of demand-side determinants of strategy dynamics.
Management Research Review 41:3, 314-344. [Crossref]
144. Alastair Orr, Jason Donovan, Dietmar Stoian. 2018. Smallholder value chains as complex adaptive
systems: a conceptual framework. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 8:1,
14-33. [Crossref]
145. Milan Zafirovski. 2018. Economics as a Multi-Paradigmatic Science: the ‘Best Kept Secret’ of Irrational
Choice. The American Sociologist 49:1, 37-63. [Crossref]
146. Steven Cavaleri, Kareem Shabana. 2018. Rethinking sustainability strategies. Journal of Strategy and
Management 11:1, 2-17. [Crossref]
147. Kai Li, Xin-Yang Liu, David Jacobson. 2018. Information and profit sharing between a buyer and a
supplier: Theory and practice. Managerial and Decision Economics 39:1, 79-90. [Crossref]
148. Peadar Kirby, Tadhg O’Mahony. Addressing the Problem: Understanding Low-Carbon Transition
with the Social Sciences 57-86. [Crossref]
149. Obby Phiri, Elisavet Mantzari. CSR Disclosure Practices in the Zambia Mining Industry 471-504.
[Crossref]
150. Mie Augier, Thorbjørn Knudsen. Winter, Sidney G. (Born 1935) 1834-1841. [Crossref]
151. Charles J. Lacivita. Economic Growth 469-474. [Crossref]
152. Tiona Zuzul, Constance E. Helfat. Capability Lifecycle 194-198. [Crossref]
153. Mie Augier, Thorbjørn Knudsen. Winter, Sidney G. (Born 1935) 1-8. [Crossref]
154. Brendan MarkeyyTowler. 2018. Monopolies Can't Survive Forever: An Evolutionary-Institutional
and Behavioural Perspective on the Non-Permanence of Market Power. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
155. Igor Lopes Rocha. 2018. Manufacturing as Driver of Economic Growth. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
156. S. Metcalfe. Technical Change 13527-13536. [Crossref]
157. Alfonso López Lira Arjona, Elisa Cobas Flores, Cecilia Calderón Valencia. 2017. Reducing SMEs
informal economy through institutionalization: the MNC-academia-SMEs business model. Revista
Innovaciones de Negocios 11:21. . [Crossref]
158. Rafael Cruz Reyes. 2017. La gestión del conocimiento y la innovación en servicios de
telecomunicaciones en las empresas de México. Revista Innovaciones de Negocios 9:18. . [Crossref]
159. Michael E. Hochberg, Pablo A. Marquet, Robert Boyd, Andreas Wagner. 2017. Innovation: an
emerging focus from cells to societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 372:1735, 20160414. [Crossref]
160. Jan-Erik Vahlne, Jan Johanson. 2017. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at
40 years. Journal of International Business Studies 48:9, 1087-1102. [Crossref]
161. Antoine Habersetzer. 2017. The Role of Pre-Entry Experience of Firm Founders in Peripheral
Regions: Routines, Business Contacts, and Local Starting Conditions. Growth and Change 48:4,
769-786. [Crossref]
162. JOSÉ G. VARGAS-HERNÁNDEZ, JOSÉ ANGEL ARREOLA-ENRÍQUEZ. 2017. THE
MOTIVATION OF COLLABORATORS IN FAMILY MICRO COMPANIES: CYBERCAFÉ.
RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 18:6, 149-176. [Crossref]
163. Mario Pianta. 2017. Innovation and economic change. Economics of Innovation and New Technology
26:8, 683-688. [Crossref]
164. Andrew Smith, Kirsten Greer. 2017. Uniting business history and global environmental history.
Business History 59:7, 987-1009. [Crossref]
165. William B. Rouse, Michael M.E. Johns, Kara M. Pepe. 2017. Learning in the health care enterprise.
Learning Health Systems 1:4, e10024. [Crossref]
166. Verónica Robert, Gabriel Yoguel, Octavio Lerena. 2017. The ontology of complexity and the neo-
Schumpeterian evolutionary theory of economic change. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 27:4,
761-793. [Crossref]
167. Claudio Loderer, René Stulz, Urs Waelchli. 2017. Firm Rigidities and the Decline in Growth
Opportunities. Management Science 63:9, 3000-3020. [Crossref]
168. Yue Wang, Karen Yuan Wang. 2017. How do firms tackle strategic change? A theoretical model
of the choice between dynamic capability-based and ad hoc problem-solving approaches. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 30:5, 725-743. [Crossref]
169. Alex Mesoudi. 2017. Pursuing Darwin’s curious parallel: Prospects for a science of cultural evolution.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:30, 7853-7860. [Crossref]
170. L. Samuelson. 2017. Game theory in economics and beyond. Voprosy Ekonomiki :5, 89-115. [Crossref]
171. Yueqi Wang, Bin Guo, Yanjie Yin. 2017. Open innovation search in manufacturing firms: the role
of organizational slack and absorptive capacity. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:3, 656-674.
[Crossref]
172. Oana Vuculescu. 2017. Searching far away from the lamp-post: An agent-based model. Strategic
Organization 15:2, 242-263. [Crossref]
173. Massimiliano Vatiero. 2017. ON THE (POLITICAL) ORIGIN OF ‘CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE’ SPECIES. Journal of Economic Surveys 31:2, 393-409. [Crossref]
174. Xiangzheng Deng, Zhan Wang, Chunhong Zhao. Economic Evolution in China's Ecologically Fragile
Regions 173-199. [Crossref]
175. Dries Maes, Steven Van Passel. 2017. An agent-based model of farmer behaviour to explain the limited
adaptability of Flemish agriculture. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 22, 63-77.
[Crossref]
176. Jerker Denrell, Chengwei Liu, Gaël Le Mens. 2017. When More Selection Is Worse. Strategy Science
2:1, 39-63. [Crossref]
177. Xiao-Shan Yap, Rajah Rasiah. 2017. Catching up and leapfrogging in a high-tech manufacturing
industry: towards a firm-level taxonomy of knowledge accumulation. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice 15:1, 114-129. [Crossref]
178. Martina Battisti, David Deakins. 2017. The relationship between dynamic capabilities, the firm’s
resource base and performance in a post-disaster environment. International Small Business Journal:
Researching Entrepreneurship 35:1, 78-98. [Crossref]
179. Rosalind Beere. The Emergence of Franchising 39-57. [Crossref]
180. Rosalind Beere. Franchising—From Industry Fragmentation to Consolidation 167-199. [Crossref]
181. Maureen McKelvey. Firms Navigating Through Innovation Spaces: A Conceptualization of How
Firms Search and Perceive Technological, Market and Productive Opportunities Globally 187-206.
[Crossref]
182. Richard Arena. 2017. Schumpeter and Schumpeterians on competition: some policy implications.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 27:1, 161-186. [Crossref]
183. Peter Kreutter. Industry Life Cycles as an Underlying Source of Continuous Change 19-63. [Crossref]
184. Ainul Abdul-Mohsin. The Relationship between Entrepreneurial Competencies, Competitive
Intelligence, and Innovative Performance among SMEs from an Emerging Country 37-58. [Crossref]
186. Tope Samson Abiodun. 2017. An Examination of the Relationships between Different Types of
Innovation and Firm Performance and the Mediating Effect of Radical and Incremental Innovations
on These Relationships. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT 3:1, 38-58. [Crossref]
187. Peter Altmann. When Shared Frames Become Contested: Environmental Dynamism and Capability
(Re)Configuration as a Trigger of Organizational Framing Contests 33-56. [Crossref]
188. Peter Grajzl, Peter Murrell. 2016. A Darwinian theory of institutional evolution two centuries before
Darwin?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 131, 346-372. [Crossref]
189. Farok Contractor, Yong Yang, Ajai S. Gaur. 2016. Firm-specific intangible assets and subsidiary
profitability: The moderating role of distance, ownership strategy and subsidiary experience. Journal
of World Business 51:6, 950-964. [Crossref]
190. Antonio Andreoni, Federico Frattini, Giorgio Prodi. 2016. Structural cycles and industrial policy
alignment: the private–public nexus in the Emilian Packaging Valley. Cambridge Journal of Economics
vol. 38, bew048. [Crossref]
191. Peter Neuhäusler, Torben Schubert, Rainer Frietsch, Knut Blind. 2016. Managing portfolio risk
in strategic technology management: evidence from a panel data-set of the world's largest R&D
performers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 25:7, 651-667. [Crossref]
192. Markus Steen. 2016. Reconsidering path creation in economic geography: aspects of agency,
temporality and methods. European Planning Studies 24:9, 1605-1622. [Crossref]
193. Jin Tiecheng, Kumiko Miyazaki, Yuya Kajikawa. Identification of evolutionary characteristics of
emerging technologies: The case of smart grid in Japan 649-656. [Crossref]
194. Claudia Diaz Perez, Jose Luis Sampedro Hernandez. Innovation for inclusive development in health
sector: Mexican experiences 482-491. [Crossref]
195. Giovanni Gavetti, Anoop Menon. 2016. Evolution Cum Agency: Toward a Model of Strategic
Foresight. Strategy Science 1:3, 207-233. [Crossref]
196. Muhamed Kudic, Andreas Pyka, Marco Sunder. 2016. The formation of R&D cooperation ties: an
event history analysis for German laser source manufacturers. Industrial and Corporate Change 25:4,
649-670. [Crossref]
197. Ajay K. Singal, Arun K. Jain. 2016. Resource Position, Fitness, Firm Vulnerability, and Performance
Heterogeneity. Strategic Change 25:4, 383-399. [Crossref]
198. Xiangzheng Deng, Zhan Wang, Chunhong Zhao. 2016. ECONOMIC EVOLUTION IN CHINA
ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE REGIONS. Journal of Economic Surveys 30:3, 552-576. [Crossref]
199. Richard A. Hunt, Bret R. Fund. 2016. Intergenerational Fairness and the Crowding Out Effects of
Well-Intended Environmental Policies. Journal of Management Studies 53:5, 878-910. [Crossref]
200. Theo Notteboom. 2016. The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: The case
of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg. Journal of Transport Geography 54, 295-309. [Crossref]
201. William H. Starbuck. 2016. 60th Anniversary Essay. Administrative Science Quarterly 61:2, 165-183.
[Crossref]
202. Robert Dalitz. 2016. Innovation and growth: The Australian Productivity Commission’s policy void?.
The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27:2, 199-214. [Crossref]
203. Katarzyna Boratyńska. 2016. NeoLek impacts on innovative realities: Lessons from Neo-
Schumpeterian economics. Journal of Business Research 69:5, 1676-1681. [Crossref]
204. Alessandro Zardini, Cecilia Rossignoli, Francesca Ricciardi. 2016. A bottom-up path for IT
management success: From infrastructure quality to competitive excellence. Journal of Business Research
69:5, 1747-1752. [Crossref]
205. Minyoung Kim. 2016. Geographic scope, isolating mechanisms, and value appropriation. Strategic
Management Journal 37:4, 695-713. [Crossref]
206. Lykke Margot Ricard. 2016. Aligning innovation with grand societal challenges: Inside the European
Technology Platforms in wind, and carbon capture and storage. Science and Public Policy 43:2, 169-183.
[Crossref]
207. Rongwei Ren, Lei Yu, Yunxia Zhu. 2016. Innovation-orientation, dynamic capabilities and evolution
of the informal Shanzhai firms in China. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 8:1, 45-59.
[Crossref]
208. Milan Zafirovski. 2016. Toward Economic Sociology/Socio-Economics? Sociological Components
in Contemporary Economics and Implications for Sociology. The American Sociologist 47:1, 56-80.
[Crossref]
209. Charlotta Sirén, Marko Kohtamäki. 2016. Stretching strategic learning to the limit: The interaction
between strategic planning and learning. Journal of Business Research 69:2, 653-663. [Crossref]
210. Dev K. Dutta, Shavin Malhotra, PengCheng Zhu. 2016. Internationalization process, impact of slack
resources, and role of the CEO: The duality of structure and agency in evolution of cross-border
acquisition decisions. Journal of World Business 51:2, 212-225. [Crossref]
211. Juliana Subtil Lacerda, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh. 2016. Diversity in solar photovoltaic energy:
Implications for innovation and policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54, 331-340.
[Crossref]
212. Herman Aguinis, Ernest O'Boyle, Erik Gonzalez-Mulé, Harry Joo. 2016. Cumulative Advantage:
Conductors and Insulators of Heavy-Tailed Productivity Distributions and Productivity Stars.
Personnel Psychology 69:1, 3-66. [Crossref]
213. Markus Grillitsch, Josephine V. Rekers. 2016. Revisiting the role of selection for the evolution of
industries. Industry and Innovation 23:1, 112-129. [Crossref]
214. José Luis Sampedro Hernández, Claudia Díaz Pérez. 2016. Innovación para el desarrollo inclusivo:
Una propuesta para su análisis. Economía Informa 396, 34-48. [Crossref]
215. Linda Argote, Jerry M. Guo. 2016. Routines and transactive memory systems: Creating, coordinating,
retaining, and transferring knowledge in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 36, 65-84.
[Crossref]
216. Charles J. Lacivita. Economic Growth 1-6. [Crossref]
217. Tiona Zuzul, Constance Helfat. Capability Lifecycle 1-5. [Crossref]
218. Massimo Egidi. Organizational Decisions in the Lab 186-206. [Crossref]
219. John F. Tomer. 2016. The Scientific Practices of Economics and the Emergence of Behavioral
Economics. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
220. Christos N. Pitelis. 2016. Dynamic Capabilities, Developmental Industrial Strategy and The Strategic
SCA of Nations. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
221. Selin Dilli, Niklas Elert. 2016. The Diversity of Entrepreneurial Regimes in Europe. SSRN Electronic
Journal . [Crossref]
222. Tae Okada, Koiti Yano. 2016. Why Have The Recoveries In The Euro Countries Been So Different?.
SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
223. Cedric Van Appelghem, VVronique Blum, Aurelie Sannajust, Samir Trabelsi. 2016. Do Friendly
Boards Have an Influence on Corporate Financing Policy? Evidence from French-Listed Firms. SSRN
Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
224. Brandon William Soltwisch. 2015. The Paradox of Organizational Rigidity. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies 22:4, 395-403. [Crossref]
225. Jennifer M. Walske, Laura D. Tyson. 2015. Built to Scale. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation 16:4, 269-281. [Crossref]
226. Michael C. J. Mayer, Christian Stadler, Julia Hautz. 2015. The relationship between product and
international diversification: The role of experience. Strategic Management Journal 36:10, 1458-1468.
[Crossref]
227. Paul Almeida, Jan Hohberger, Pedro Parada. Informal Knowledge and Innovation 383-402. [Crossref]
228. Gianluca Misuraca, Gianluigi Viscusi. 2015. Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative
framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation. Electronic Commerce Research 15:3, 303-322.
[Crossref]
229. Thomas A. C. Reydon, Markus Scholz. 2015. Searching for Darwinism in Generalized Darwinism.
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66:3, 561-589. [Crossref]
230. Massimo G. Colombo, Chiara Franzoni, Reinhilde Veugelers. 2015. Going radical: producing and
transferring disruptive innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer 40:4, 663-669. [Crossref]
231. Jim Quinn. 2015. Editorial: re-introducing evolutionary theory to business history: making sense of
today's structure. Business History 57:5, 655-663. [Crossref]
232. Graciela Kuechle, Diego Rios. 2015. Optimization-Based Explanations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences
45:4-5, 481-496. [Crossref]
233. Fabricio Jose Missio, Frederico G. Jayme Jr., Octavio A. C. Conceição. 2015. O problema das
elasticidades nos modelos de crescimento com restrição externa: Contribuições ao debate. Estudos
Econômicos (São Paulo) 45:2, 317-346. [Crossref]
234. Mari Makkonen, Mats Nilsson, Satu Viljainen. 2015. All quiet on the western front? Transmission
capacity development in the Nordic electricity market. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy
4:2. . [Crossref]
235. Peter R. Dickson. 2015. The adoption of customer service improvement practices. Marketing Letters
26:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
236. Michael D. Makowsky, David M. Levy. 2015. INCREASING RETURNS TO SCALE, PRICE
DISPERSION, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF RETURNS TO INNOVATION. Macroeconomic
Dynamics 19:2, 334-362. [Crossref]
237. Ioanna D Constantiou, Jannis Kallinikos. 2015. New Games, New Rules: Big Data and the Changing
Context of Strategy. Journal of Information Technology 30:1, 44-57. [Crossref]
238. Mark Lubell. 2015. Collaborative partnerships in complex institutional systems. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 12, 41-47. [Crossref]
239. D. Gertner, B. A. G. Bossink. 2015. The evolution of science concentrations: The case of Newcastle
Science City. Science and Public Policy 42:1, 121-138. [Crossref]
240. D. Rodrik. 2015. When ideas trump interests: Preferences, Worldviews, and Policy innovations. Voprosy
Ekonomiki :1, 22-44. [Crossref]
241. Kamal Kishore Jain, Manjit Singh Sandhu, See Kwong Goh. 2015. Organizational climate, trust and
knowledge sharing: insights from Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:1, 54-77. [Crossref]
242. Muhamed Kudic. Causes and Consequences of Network Evolution 181-216. [Crossref]
243. Marie J. Bouchard, Catherine Trudelle, Louise Briand, Juan-Luis Klein, Benoît Lévesque, David
Longtin, Mathieu Pelletier. A Relational Database to Understand Social Innovation and Its Impact
on Social Transformation 69-85. [Crossref]
244. Jason Jay, Marine Gerard. 2015. Accelerating the Theory and Practice of Sustainability-Oriented
Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
245. Andrei N. Soklakov. 2015. Quantitative Structuring vs the Equity Premium Puzzle. SSRN Electronic
246. Massimiliano Vatiero. 2015. On the (Political) Origin of Corporate Governancee Species. SSRN
247. Octavio A. C. Conceição. A relação entre instituições e crescimento econômic: o uma análise
heterodoxa e evolucionária 157-191. [Crossref]
248. Luan Carlos Santos Silva, Carla Schwengber ten Caten, Silvia Gaia. Technological Forecasting of
Sustainable Products 174-192. [Crossref]
249. Soniya Billore, Gautam Billore. Innovation in the Indian Banking Industry 158-176. [Crossref]
250. André Lieber. 2015. The Distributed Cognitive Economics of Reform: A Framework. Journal of
Interdisciplinary Economics 27:1, 49-75. [Crossref]
251. Milan Zafirovski. 2014. Rational Choice Requiem: The Decline of an Economic Paradigm and its
Implications for Sociology. The American Sociologist 45:4, 432-452. [Crossref]
252. ULRICH WITT. 2014. The future of evolutionary economics: why the modalities of explanation
matter. Journal of Institutional Economics 10:4, 645-664. [Crossref]
253. Suna Løwe Nielsen, Poul Rind Christensen. 2014. The Wicked Problem of Design Management:
Perspectives from the Field of Entrepreneurship. The Design Journal 17:4, 560-582. [Crossref]
254. Arun Kumar Jain, Ajay Kumar Singal. 2014. Mapping vulnerability: how emerging markets respond
to multinationals. Journal of Business Strategy 35:6, 41-48. [Crossref]
255. Vanesa Barrales-Molina, Francisco J. Martínez-López, Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad. 2014. Dynamic
Marketing Capabilities: Toward an Integrative Framework. International Journal of Management
Reviews 16:4, 397-416. [Crossref]
256. Alberto Silva. 2014. How to Become an Innovative Company: A Case Study. International Journal of
Innovation Science 6:3, 177-182. [Crossref]
257. João Garibaldi Almeida Viana, Paulo Dabdab Waquil. 2014. Uma perspectiva evolucionária da
economia agrícola: o caso da produção ovina no Brasil e Uruguai. Revista de Economia e Sociologia
Rural 52:3, 471-494. [Crossref]
258. Ondřej Krčál. 2014. The Relationship between Profitability, Innovation and Technology Gap: A Basic
Model. Review of Economic Perspectives 14:3, 215-231. [Crossref]
259. Bernard Lew Shian Loong. 2014. Tourism and Simulacrum: The Computational Economy of
Algorithmic Destinations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144, 237-246. [Crossref]
260. Alessandro Hinna, Ernesto De Nito, Gianluigi Mangia, Danila Scarozza, Andrea Tomo. Advancing
Public Governance Research: Individual and Collective Dynamics in and Around the Boardroom 3-39.
[Crossref]
261. Duarte N. Leite, Sandra T. Silva, Oscar Afonso. 2014. INSTITUTIONS, ECONOMICS AND THE
DEVELOPMENT QUEST. Journal of Economic Surveys 28:3, 491-515. [Crossref]
262. Quan Hoang Vuong, Nancy K. Napier. 2014. Resource curse or destructive creation in transition.
Management Research Review 37:7, 642-657. [Crossref]
263. Neil Hart. 2014. Tieben on The Concept of Equilibrium in Different Economic Traditions. History
of Economics Review 60:1, 75-85. [Crossref]
264. C. N. Pitelis. 2014. Rejuvenating 'Old Europe': Towards a Strategy for Reindustrialisation and
Sustainable Competitiveness. Contributions to Political Economy 33:1, 69-98. [Crossref]
265. Thomas Berger, Christian Troost. 2014. Agent-based Modelling of Climate Adaptation and
Mitigation Options in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics 65:2, 323-348. [Crossref]
266. Marie-José Scotto, André Boyer, Nadia Deacken, Hervé Tiffon. 2014. De la diversité des âges
à la gestion intergénérationnelle. Le développement des politiques intergénérationnelles dans les
entreprises en France. Le cas de trois banques françaises. Question(s) de management n° 6:2, 61-73.
[Crossref]
267. Bin Guo, Yueqi Wang. 2014. Environmental turbulence, absorptive capacity and external knowledge
search among Chinese SMEs. Chinese Management Studies 8:2, 258-272. [Crossref]
268. Olli Lehtonen, Markku Tykkyläinen. 2014. Delphi path simulator for unveiling development
opportunities in the forest industries by contrasting forest management practices — The case of North
Karelia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 84, 171-185. [Crossref]
269. Amel Attour, Marc-Hubert Depret. 2014. Technologies de l'information et de la communication,
soutenabilité et stratégie territoriale des villes durables : le cas des EcoCités en France. Innovations n
° 44:2, 187-212. [Crossref]
270. Murray J. Pyle, Jeffrey K. Liker. 2014. Imitation in Large Complex Organizations: A Case of Design
for Six Sigma in the Automobile Industry. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 4:2, 76-99. [Crossref]
271. Wasko Rothmann, Jochen Koch. 2014. Creativity in strategic lock-ins: The newspaper industry and
the digital revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 83, 66-83. [Crossref]
272. Dani Rodrik. 2014. When Ideas Trump Interests: Preferences, Worldviews, and Policy Innovations.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 28:1, 189-208. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
273. Son A. Le, Jung Chul Park, Mark Kroll. 2014. Differential effects of pre- and post-acquisition R&D
expenditures on post-acquisition performance. Journal of Business Research 67:2, 92-99. [Crossref]
274. Rob Dekkers, Steve Talbot, Julie Thomson, Geoffrey Whittam. 2014. Does Schumpeter still rule?
Reflections on the current epoch. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management n°13:1, 7-36.
[Crossref]
275. . Bibliographie 311-334. [Crossref]
276. Maryam Dilmaghani. 2014. Dynamics of social influence: an evolutionary approach. International
Journal of Social Economics 41:2, 123-145. [Crossref]
277. Tom Kauko. Towards Evolutionary Economic Analysis of Sustainable Urban Real Estate: Concept of a
Research Strategy Exemplified on House Price Modeling Using the Self-Organizing Map, Interviews
and Field Inspection 67-86. [Crossref]
278. Angel Peiró-Signes, Ana Payá-Martínez, María-del-Val Segarra-Oña, María de-Miguel-Molina. What
is Influencing the Sustainable Attitude of the Automobile Industry? 47-63. [Crossref]
279. Parthasarathi Banerjee. Medical Consumption and Clinical Practice: India at the Crossroads 165-178.
[Crossref]
280. Gianluca Misuraca, Gianluigi Viscusi. Digital governance in the public sector 146-154. [Crossref]
281. Ivvn H. Ayala, Alfonso Palacio-Vera. 2014. The Rational Expectations Hypothesis: An Assessment
from Popper's Philosophy. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
282. Tae Okada, Koiti Yano. 2014. Natural Selection Types and Firm Diversity: An Evolutionary Extension
of Endogenous Growth Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
283. Tae Okada, Koiti Yano. 2014. Darwin Meets Schumpeter: Natural Selection Types and Environmental
Changes in an Endogenous Growth Model. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
284. Demian Simon Berchtold, Claudio F. Loderer, Urs Waelchli. 2014. Core Abilities, Divestitures, and
the Corporate Lifecycle. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
285. Ganesh D. Bhatt, Pankaj Pankaj, James A. Rodger. 2014. Managing Knowledge in Shared Spaces.
Intelligent Information Management 06:05, 240-247. [Crossref]
286. Anne Barraquier. 2014. Le rôle de la responsabilité sociale dans la connaissance organisationnelle :
approche conceptuelle. Management international 19:1, 130-140. [Crossref]
287. Fangrui Wang, Jin Chen, Yuandi Wang, Ning Lutao, Wim Vanhaverbeke. 2014. The effect of R&D
novelty and openness decision on firms' catch-up performance: Empirical evidence from China.
Technovation 34:1, 21-30. [Crossref]
288. Steven M. Shugan, Debanjan Mitra. 2014. A Theory for Market Growth or Decline. Marketing Science
33:1, 47-65. [Crossref]
289. Elinor Ostrom, Xavier Basurto. 2013. Façonner des outils d’analyse pour étudier le changement
institutionnel. Revue de la régulation :14. . [Crossref]
290. Klaus Edenhoffer, Roger Hayter. 2013. Reprint of “Organizational restructuring in British Columbia's
forest industries 1980–2010: The survival of a dinosaur”. Applied Geography 45, 375-384. [Crossref]
291. Minyoung Kim. 2013. Many roads lead to Rome: Implications of geographic scope as a source of
isolating mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies 44:9, 898-921. [Crossref]
292. Krzysztof Obloj, Marc Weinstein, Shujun Zhang. 2013. Self-Limiting Dominant Logic: An
Exploratory Study of Chinese Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of East-West Business 19:4, 291-316.
[Crossref]
293. R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson. 2013. An interpretive history of challenges to neoclassical microeconomics
and how they have fared. Industrial and Corporate Change 22:6, 1409-1451. [Crossref]
294. Annika Steiber, Sverker Alänge. 2013. The formation and growth of Google: A firm-level triple helix
perspective. Social Science Information 52:4, 575-604. [Crossref]
295. Tuomas Huikkola, Juho Ylimäki, Marko Kohtamäki. 2013. Joint learning in R&D collaborations and
the facilitating relational practices. Industrial Marketing Management 42:7, 1167-1180. [Crossref]
296. CHRISTIAN HENNING, VOLKER SAGGAU. 2013. NETWORKS, KNOWLEDGE
SPILLOVERS AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS OF FIRMS: SIMULATIONS IN AN
EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
10:05, 1340018. [Crossref]
297. Sandra M. Ríos-Núñez, Daniel Coq-Huelva, Roberto García-Trujillo. 2013. The Spanish livestock
model: A coevolutionary analysis. Ecological Economics 93, 342-350. [Crossref]
298. Peter Frederiksen, Tue Jagtfelt. 2013. Exponential Expansion in Evolutionary Economics: A Model
Proposition. Journal of Economic Issues 47:3, 705-718. [Crossref]
299. Giulio Bottazzi, Pietro Dindo. 2013. Evolution and market behavior in economics and finance:
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 23:3, 507-512. [Crossref]
300. Giulio Bottazzi, Pietro Dindo. 2013. Selection in asset markets: the good, the bad, and the unknown.
301. Yoguel Gabriel, Barletta Florencia, Pereira Mariano. 2013. De Schumpeter a los postschumpeterianos:
viejas y nuevas dimensiones analíticas**Se agradecen los comentarios de los árbitros de la revista a una
versión previa de este artículo;. Problemas del Desarrollo 44:174, 35-59. [Crossref]
302. Eduardo Pol. 2013. Reconciling the Invisible Hand and innovation. Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 22:5, 431-446. [Crossref]
303. Markus Scholz, Thomas A. C. Reydon. 2013. On the Explanatory Power of Generalized Darwinism:
Missing Items on the Research Agenda. Organization Studies 34:7, 993-999. [Crossref]
304. Jerald Hage, Jonathon E. Mote, Gretchen B. Jordan. 2013. Ideas, innovations, and networks: a new
policy model based on the evolution of knowledge. Policy Sciences 46:2, 199-216. [Crossref]
305. Klaus Edenhoffer, Roger Hayter. 2013. Organizational restructuring in British Columbia's forest
industries 1980–2010: The survival of a dinosaur. Applied Geography 40, 222-231. [Crossref]
306. Krsto Pandza, Paul Ellwood. 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation.
Research Policy 42:5, 1112-1125. [Crossref]
307. Marcelo Hoss, Carla Schwengber ten Caten. 2013. Lean schools of thought. International Journal of
Production Research 51:11, 3270-3282. [Crossref]
308. Bernard Triomphe, Anne Floquet, Geoffrey Kamau, Brigid Letty, Simplice Davo Vodouhe, Teresiah
Ng'ang'a, Joe Stevens, Jolanda van den Berg, Nour Selemna, Bernard Bridier, Todd Crane, Cornelia
Almekinders, Ann Waters-Bayer, Henri Hocdé. 2013. What Does an Inventory of Recent Innovation
Experiences Tell Us About Agricultural Innovation in Africa?. The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension 19:3, 311-324. [Crossref]
309. J. P. Eggers, Sarah Kaplan. 2013. Cognition and Capabilities: A Multi-Level Perspective. The Academy
of Management Annals 7:1, 295-340. [Crossref]
310. J. P. Eggers, Sarah Kaplan. 2013. Cognition and Capabilities: A Multi-Level Perspective. Academy of
Management Annals 7:1, 295-340. [Crossref]
311. Jordi Catalan, Ramon Ramon-Muñoz. 2013. Marshall in Iberia. Industrial Districts and Leading Firms
in the Creation of Competitive Advantage in Fashion Products. Enterprise and Society 14:2, 327-359.
[Crossref]
312. Antonio J Revilla, Zulima Fernández. 2013. The dynamics of company profits: A latent growth model.
Strategic Organization 11:2, 180-204. [Crossref]
313. C. Heinzel. 2013. Schumpeter and Georgescu-Roegen on the foundations of an evolutionary analysis.
Cambridge Journal of Economics 37:2, 251-271. [Crossref]
314. Jonathan Linton, Steven Walsh. 2013. The effect of technology on learning during the acquisition
and development of competencies in technology‐intensive small firms. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 19:2, 165-186. [Crossref]
315. Hendrik Wortmann. 2013. Re-Reading Robert E. Park on Social Evolution: An Early Darwinian
Conception of Society. Biological Theory 7:1, 69-79. [Crossref]
316. Erk P. Piening. 2013. Dynamic Capabilities in Public Organizations. Public Management Review 15:2,
209-245. [Crossref]
317. Silvia Ulli-Beer, Stefan Groesser, Ruth Kaufmann-Hayoz. A Research Method for Integrative
Transition Simulation 49-81. [Crossref]
318. Michiko Iizuka, Luc Soete. Catching Up in the 21st Century: Globalization, Knowledge and
Capabilities in Latin America, a Case for Natural Resource Based Activities 242-262. [Crossref]
319. Luca Grilli, Paul H. Jensen, Samuele Murtinu. 2013. The Imprinting of Founders’ Human Capital
on Entrepreneurial Venture Growth: Evidence from New Technology-Based Firms. SSRN Electronic
320. Camilla Jensen, Low Mei Peng. SMEs, Institutions, and Performance 22-41. [Crossref]
321. Mamun Ul Ala. 2013. A Firm-level Analysis of the Vulnerability of the Bangladeshi Pharmaceutical
Industry to the TRIPS Agreement: Implications for R&D Capability and Technology Transfer.
Procedia Economics and Finance 5, 30-39. [Crossref]
322. Giulio Bottazzi, Angelo Secchi. 2012. Productivity, profitability and growth: The empirics of firm
dynamics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 23:4, 325-328. [Crossref]
323. C. Pitelis. 2012. Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual
framework. Industrial and Corporate Change 21:6, 1359-1388. [Crossref]
324. Eleonora Bartoloni. 2012. The persistence of innovation: a panel data investigation on manufacturing
firms. International Review of Applied Economics 26:6, 787-810. [Crossref]
325. Philipp H. Grünewald, Timothy T. Cockerill, Marcello Contestabile, Peter J.G. Pearson. 2012. The
socio-technical transition of distributed electricity storage into future networks—System value and
stakeholder views. Energy Policy 50, 449-457. [Crossref]
326. Lei Ma, Yongjiang Shi, Wenwen Zhao. 2012. Habitual domain exploration in inter‐firm networks.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23:8, 1057-1070. [Crossref]
327. Qingyan Shang, Jessie P. H. Poon. 2012. INTERNATIONAL SPILLOVERS, KNOWLEDGE
ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER AMONG JAPANESE FIRMS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Journal of Business Economics and Management 14:3, 535-557. [Crossref]
328. Dilek Çetindamar, Ayşe Günsel. 2012. Measuring the Creativity of a City: A Proposal and an
Application. European Planning Studies 20:8, 1301-1318. [Crossref]
329. María-del-Val Segarra-Oña, Ángel Peiró-Signes, Rohit Verma, Luis Miret-Pastor. 2012. Does
Environmental Certification Help the Economic Performance of Hotels?. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
53:3, 242-256. [Crossref]
330. Annetta Fortune, Will Mitchell. 2012. Unpacking Firm Exit at the Firm and Industry Levels: The
Adaptation and Selection of Firm Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 33:7, 794-819. [Crossref]
331. Allan Afuah, Christopher L. Tucci. 2012. Crowdsourcing As a Solution to Distant Search. Academy
of Management Review 37:3, 355-375. [Crossref]
332. Clement Smartt, Susan Ferreira. 2012. Constructing a general framework for systems engineering
strategy. Systems Engineering 15:2, 140-152. [Crossref]
333. Kelly Levin, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein, Graeme Auld. 2012. Overcoming the tragedy of
super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy
Sciences 45:2, 123-152. [Crossref]
334. Erling A. N. Christiansen, Stig‐erik Jakobsen. 2012. Embedded and disembedded practice in the
firm–place nexus: a study of two world‐leading manufacturers of ski equipment in the lillehammer
ski cluster. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 94:2, 177-194. [Crossref]
335. Sandra Tavares Silva, Jorge M. S. Valente, Aurora A. C. Teixeira. 2012. An evolutionary model of
industry dynamics and firms’ institutional behavior with job search, bargaining and matching. Journal
of Economic Interaction and Coordination 7:1, 23-61. [Crossref]
336. Anna Mansikkasalo, Patrik Soderholm. Energy efficient and low-carbon technology in process
industries: Innovation, diffusion and the role of public policy 1-8. [Crossref]
337. Emmanuel Petit. 2012. L'apport de la psychologie sociale à l'analyse économique. Revue d'économie
politique Vol. 121:6, 797-837. [Crossref]
338. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Kainan Huang. 2012. Evolutionary game theory and evolutionary economics:
are they different species?. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 22:2, 345-366. [Crossref]
339. Peter Zettinig, Zsuzsanna Vincze. 2012. How clusters evolve. Competitiveness Review: An International
Business Journal 22:2, 110-132. [Crossref]
340. Stefan Ouma. 2012. Creating and Maintaining Global Connections: Agro-business and the Precarious
Making of Fresh-cut Markets. Journal of Development Studies 48:3, 322-334. [Crossref]
341. Octavio A. C. Conceição. 2012. Há compatibilidade entre a "tecnologia social" de Nelson e a
"causalidade vebleniana" de Hodgson?. Revista de Economia Política 32:1, 109-127. [Crossref]
342. Luke Bergmann. 2012. A Coevolutionary Approach to the Capitalist Space Economy. Environment
and Planning A: Economy and Space 44:3, 518-537. [Crossref]
343. Paul Twomey. 2012. Rationales for Additional Climate Policy Instruments under a Carbon Price. The
Economic and Labour Relations Review 23:1, 7-31. [Crossref]
344. Giovanni Gavetti. 2012. PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy. Organization
Science 23:1, 267-285. [Crossref]
345. Vivienne Wang, Elias G. Carayannis. Theoritical and Empirical Literature Review 17-46. [Crossref]
346. Peter Friedrich, Janno Reiljan, Ingra Paltser. Policy Suggestions for Integrated Public Innovation
Policies in a Small Country 343-370. [Crossref]
347. Abdelghani Es-Sajjade, Krsto Pandza. Reconceptualising Dynamic Capabilities: A Design Science
Study on the Role of Agency 158-170. [Crossref]
348. D. Maclennan. Time and the Economic Analysis of Housing Systems 196-200. [Crossref]
349. Michael D. Makowsky, David M. Levy. 2012. Increasing Returns to Scale, Price Dispersion, and the
Distribution of Returns to Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
350. Ofer Vexler. 2012. Valuation of Technology - Theory and Practice Approaches. SSRN Electronic
351. Leon Zucchini. 2012. Competition on Rugged Landscapes: The Dynamics of Horizontal
Differentiation. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
352. Steven Cavaleri. Toward a More Pragmatic Knowledge Management 327-346. [Crossref]
353. William Collier, Francis Green, Young-Bae Kim, John Peirson. 2011. Education, Training and
Economic Performance: Evidence from Establishment Survival Data. Journal of Labor Research 32:4,
336-361. [Crossref]
354. Richard R. Nelson. 2011. Human Behavior and Cognition in Evolutionary Economics. Biological
Theory 6:4, 293-300. [Crossref]
355. Helga Weisz, Eric Clark. 2011. Society–nature coevolution: interdisciplinary concept for sustainability.
Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 93:4, 281-287. [Crossref]
356. Richard B. Norgaard, Giorgos Kallis. 2011. Coevolutionary contradictions: prospects for a research
programme on social and environmental change. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 93:4,
289-300. [Crossref]
357. Doris Hanappi. 2011. Economic Action, Fields and Uncertainty. Journal of Economic Issues 45:4,
785-804. [Crossref]
358. Marcus Wagner, Patrick Llerena. 2011. Eco-Innovation Through Integration, Regulation and
Cooperation: Comparative Insights from Case Studies in Three Manufacturing Sectors. Industry &
Innovation 18:8, 747-764. [Crossref]
359. M. Segarra-Oña, A. Peiró-Signes, L. Miret-Pastor, J. Albors-Garrigós. 2011. Â¿Eco-innovación, una
evolución de la innovación? Análisis empírico en la industria cerámica española. Boletín de la Sociedad
Española de Cerámica y Vidrio 50:5, 253-260. [Crossref]
360. Philip Mirowski. On the Origins (at Chicago) of Some Species of Neoliberal Evolutionary Economics
237-276. [Crossref]
361. Imoh Antai. 2011. Supply chain vs supply chain competition: a niche‐based approach. Management
Research Review 34:10, 1107-1124. [Crossref]
362. Rafael Cáceres, Joaquín Guzmán, Marek Rekowski. 2011. Firms as source of variety in innovation:
influence of size and sector. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7:3, 357-372.
[Crossref]
363. ELINOR OSTROM, XAVIER BASURTO. 2011. Crafting analytical tools to study institutional
change. Journal of Institutional Economics 7:3, 317-343. [Crossref]
364. MARK BLYTH, GEOFFREY M. HODGSON, ORION LEWIS, SVEN STEINMO. 2011.
Introduction to the Special Issue on the Evolution of Institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics
7:3, 299-315. [Crossref]
365. Jie Mein Goh, Guodong (Gordon) Gao, Ritu Agarwal. 2011. Evolving Work Routines: Adaptive
Routinization of Information Technology in Healthcare. Information Systems Research 22:3, 565-585.
[Crossref]
366. Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2011. RETHINKING MACROECONOMICS: WHAT FAILED, AND HOW
TO REPAIR IT. Journal of the European Economic Association 9:4, 591-645. [Crossref]
367. Andy Stirling. 2011. Pluralising progress: From integrative transitions to transformative diversity.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1:1, 82-88. [Crossref]
368. Till Grüne-Yanoff. 2011. Models as products of interdisciplinary exchange: Evidence from evolutionary
game theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42:2, 386-397. [Crossref]
369. Herbert Dawid, Marc Reimann. 2011. Diversification: a road to inefficiency in product innovations?.
370. Sören Steger, Raimund Bleischwitz. 2011. Drivers for the use of materials across countries. Journal of
Cleaner Production 19:8, 816-826. [Crossref]
371. Joseph E. Stiglitz. 2011. Rethinking Macroeconomics: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It. Global
Policy 2:2, 165-175. [Crossref]
372. Christian Gärtner. 2011. Putting new wine into old bottles. Management Decision 49:2, 253-269.
[Crossref]
373. Sandra T. Silva, Aurora A. C. Teixeira. 2011. Labour Decisions and Industrial Dynamics in an
Evolutionary Model: A Neglected Modelling Approach. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics
Review 7:2, 295-331. [Crossref]
374. Christos N. Pitelis. The Competitive Advantage and Catching-Up of Nations: A New Framework and
the Role of FDI, Clusters and Public Policy 281-303. [Crossref]
375. Christine Benna Skytt, Lars Winther. 2011. Trust and local knowledge production: Inter-
organisational collaborations in the Sønderborg region, Denmark. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal
of Geography 111:1, 27-41. [Crossref]
376. Erk P. Piening. 2011. Insights into the Process Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Public
Management Review 13:1, 127-157. [Crossref]
377. Andrea Filippetti, Frederick Guy. 2011. Labour Market Institutions, Skills, and the Resilience of
Innovation During the Financial Crisis in Europe. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
378. Olivier Brette, Yves Chappoz, Bernard Dussuc, Cédric Poivret. 2011. Management de l'innovation
et Business Models des PMI. Le cas de l'industrie plasturgiste. Management & Avenir 41:1, 236.
[Crossref]
379. Jie Meng. 2010. Labor theory of value and the uncertainty in capitalist economy. Frontiers of Economics
in China 5:4, 657-676. [Crossref]
380. 문문문. 2010. Persistence of History in Market Outcomes. The Review of Business History 25:4, 133-160.
[Crossref]
381. Zhang Chi, Zhang Xiao-di. Evolution of innovation regime and industrial cluster in developing
countries: A case study of Shaoxing, China 1433-1438. [Crossref]
382. Lalit Manral. 2010. Demand competition and investment heterogeneity in industries based on systemic
technologies: evidence from the US long-distance telecommunications services industry, 1984–1996.
383. Peter E. Earl, Tim Wakeley. 2010. Economic perspectives on the development of complex products
for increasingly demanding customers. Research Policy 39:8, 1122-1132. [Crossref]
384. Reina Y. Arakji, Karl R. Lang. 2010. Adoption and Diffusion of Business Practice Innovations: An
Evolutionary Analysis. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15:1, 145-168. [Crossref]
385. Orion Lewis, Sven Steinmo. 2010. Taking evolution seriously in political science. Theory in Biosciences
129:2-3, 235-245. [Crossref]
386. Mary M. Crossan, Marina Apaydin. 2010. A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational
Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies 47:6, 1154-1191.
[Crossref]
387. Anthony M. Endres, Christine R. Woods. 2010. Schumpeter’s ‘conduct model of the dynamic
entrepreneur’: scope and distinctiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 20:4, 583-607. [Crossref]
388. Pablo del Río, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Totti Könnölä. 2010. Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-
Innovation. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14:4, 541-557. [Crossref]
389. Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Pablo del Río, Totti Könnölä. 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations:
Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 18:10-11, 1073-1083. [Crossref]
390. C. N. Pitelis, V. Vasilaros. 2010. The Determinants of Value and Wealth Creation at the Firm, Industry,
and National Levels: A Conceptual Framework and Evidence. Contributions to Political Economy 29:1,
33-58. [Crossref]
391. Leonardo Costa Ribeiro, Ricardo Machado Ruiz, Américo Tristão Bernardes, Eduardo da Motta e
Albuquerque. 2010. Modeling economic growth fuelled by science and technology. Estudos Econômicos
(São Paulo) 40:2, 319-340. [Crossref]
392. Marcus Wagner. 2010. The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A
firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecological Economics 69:7, 1553-1560. [Crossref]
393. Shari S C Shang, Shu-Fang Lin. 2010. A model of intellectual capital management capability in the
dynamic business environment. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8:1, 15-23. [Crossref]
394. Pierre Daniel. 2010. Pilotage stratégique de projets et management des systèmes dynamiques.
Innovations n° 31:1, 51-80. [Crossref]
395. Miguel A. Gual, Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A
review and proposal. Ecological Economics 69:4, 707-717. [Crossref]
396. Victor Hiller. 2010. WORKERS' BEHAVIOR AND LABOR CONTRACT: AN
EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH. Metroeconomica 61:1, 152-179. [Crossref]
397. Giovanni Dosi, Richard R. Nelson. Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary
Processes 51-127. [Crossref]
398. Dan Haglund. From Boom to Bust: Diversity and Regulation in Zambia’s Privatized Copper Sector
91-126. [Crossref]
399. S. Metcalfe. technical change 237-248. [Crossref]
400. Karl R. Lang, Reina Y. Arakji. Evolution of Innovations Across Web 2.0 Service Platforms through
Mutation, Natural Selection and Reuse 1-10. [Crossref]
401. Nicolai J. Foss, Nils Stieglitz. 2010. Modern Resource-Based Theory(ies). SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
402. Andrea Filippetti. 2010. Industrial Design as a Source of Innovation of the Firm: Knowledge, Linkages
and Dynamic. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
403. Louis-Gaëtan Giraudet, Dominique Finon. 2010. On the Road to a Unified Market for Energy
Efficiency: The Contribution of White Certificates Schemes. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
404. Pinar Ozcan, Filipe M. Santos. 2010. The Market that Never Was: Clashing Frames and Failed
Coalitions in Mobile Payments. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
405. Tomasz Obloj, Krzysztof Obloj, Michael G. Pratt. 2010. Dominant Logic and Entrepreneurial Firms‘
Performance in a Transition Economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34:1, 151-170. [Crossref]
406. JAN-ERIK JOHANSON. 2009. STRATEGY FORMATION IN PUBLIC AGENCIES. Public
Administration 87:4, 872-891. [Crossref]
407. Joseph T. Mahoney, Anita M. McGahan, Christos N. Pitelis. 2009. Perspective —The
Interdependence of Private and Public Interests. Organization Science 20:6, 1034-1052. [Crossref]
408. Sören Kupke, Christoph Lattemann. 2009. Emergenz organisationaler Fähigkeiten. Zeitschrift für
409. Sandra Tavares Silva, Aurora A. C. Teixeira. 2009. On the divergence of evolutionary research paths
in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19:5,
605-642. [Crossref]
410. Christos N. Pitelis. 2009. The Co-Evolution of Organizational Value Capture, Value Creation and
Sustainable Advantage. Organization Studies 30:10, 1115-1139. [Crossref]
411. Jun-feng JIANG. 2009. Modeling the Inheritance and Variation based on the Fractal for Techno-
Innovation Network Structure: From Viewpoint of Integrating Time with Hierarchy. Systems
Engineering - Theory & Practice 29:8, 91-101. [Crossref]
412. Ju Liu, Angathevar Baskaran, Shiming Li. 2009. Building Technological-Innovation-Based Strategic
Capabilities at Firm Level in China: A Dynamic Resource-Based-View Case Study. Industry &
Innovation 16:4-5, 411-434. [Crossref]
413. Walter Bataglia, Dimária Silva E. Meirelles. 2009. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics:
Toward an Integrative Model. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
414. Arnab Bhattacharjee, Eduardo de Castro, Chris Jensen-Butler. 2009. Regional variation in
productivity: a study of the Danish economy. Journal of Productivity Analysis 31:3, 195-212. [Crossref]
415. Teppo Felin, Nicolai J. Foss. 2009. Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and
a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25:2, 157-167.
[Crossref]
416. Hong Y. Park, Geon-Cheol Shin, Iksu Jurn. 2009. Corporate Strategies and Performances of Korean
Firms: The Unified Theory of the Firm Perspective. Global Economic Review 38:2, 185-203. [Crossref]
417. Kishore Gopalakrishna Pillai. 2009. Managers' Perceptual Errors Revisited: the Role of Knowledge
Calibration. British Journal of Management 27. . [Crossref]
418. Grazia Cecere. 2009. VoIP Diffusion among New Entrants: A Path Dependent Process. Industry &
Innovation 16:2, 219-245. [Crossref]
419. Krsto Pandza, Richard Thorpe. 2009. Creative Search and Strategic Sense-making: Missing
Dimensions in the Concept of Dynamic Capabilities. British Journal of Management 20, S118-S131.
[Crossref]
420. Sandra Tavares Silva. 2009. On evolutionary technological change and economic growth: Lakatos as
a starting point for appraisal. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19:1, 111-135. [Crossref]
421. Christos N. Pitelis. 2009. The Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Catching-up of Nations:
FDI, Clusters and the Liability (Asset) of Smallness. Management International Review 49:1, 95-120.
[Crossref]
422. S. Kuntsel. 2009. Evolutionary Modeling and Critical Realism. Voprosy Ekonomiki :1, 101-118.
[Crossref]
423. Heike Diefenbach. Die Theorie der Rationalen Wahl oder „Rational Choice“-Theorie (RCT)
239-290. [Crossref]
424. Francesco Costanzo, Yuichi Kanda, Toshiaki Kimura, Hermann Kühnle, Bruno Lisanti, Jagjit Singh
Srai, Klaus-Dieter Thoben, Bernd Wilhelm, Patrick M. Williams. Enterprise Organization and
Operation 1267-1359. [Crossref]
425. Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Pablo Río del González, Totti Könnölä. What is eco-innovation? 6-27.
[Crossref]
426. Grazia Cecere. 2009. VoIP Diffusion Among New Entrants: A Path Dependent Process. SSRN
427. Christos Pitelis. 2009. Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Integration. SSRN Electronic Journal
. [Crossref]
428. Christos N Pitelis, David J Teece. 2009. The (new) nature and essence of the firm. European
Management Review 6:1, 5-15. [Crossref]
429. Marcel Truche, Sophie Reboud. 2009. Contribution à la compréhension du processus d’élaboration de
la stratégie des PME. Revue internationale P.M.E. 22:1, 129-160. [Crossref]
430. A.C. Santana, R.L. Santana, E.C.B. Tavares. 2008. Identificação e Caracterização do Arranjo Produtivo
Local (APL) do Setor Pesqueiro no Estado do Pará. Boletim Técnico Científico do CEPNOR 8:1,
97-111. [Crossref]
431. Peter Zettinig, Maureen Benson-Rea. 2008. What becomes of International New Ventures? A
coevolutionary approach. European Management Journal 26:6, 354-365. [Crossref]
432. Joel West. 2008. Commercializing Open Science: Deep Space Communications as the Lead Market
for Shannon Theory, 1960-73. Journal of Management Studies 45:8, 1506-1532. [Crossref]
433. Ulrich Witt. 2008. What is specific about evolutionary economics?. Journal of Evolutionary Economics
18:5, 547-575. [Crossref]
434. Shyama V. Ramani, Mhamed-Ali El-Aroui, Myriam Carrère. 2008. On estimating a knowledge
production function at the firm and sector level using patent statistics. Research Policy 37:9, 1568-1578.
[Crossref]
435. Sean R. Lauer. 2008. Exchange Relationships in Inshore Fisheries 1. Sociological Forum 23:3, 503-535.
[Crossref]
436. Serguei Kaniovski, Michael Peneder, Egon Smeral. 2008. Determinants of Firm Survival in the
Austrian Accommodation Sector. Tourism Economics 14:3, 527-543. [Crossref]
437. Hirschel Kasper. 2008. Sources of Economics Majors: More Biology, Less Business. Southern Economic
438. Ulrich Witt. Evolutionary economics and psychology 493-511. [Crossref]
439. John Stanley Metcalfe. 2008. Accounting for economic evolution: Fitness and the population method.
Journal of Bioeconomics 10:1, 23-49. [Crossref]
440. Martina Eckardt. 2008. Explaining Legal Change from an Evolutionary Economics Perspective.
German Law Journal 9:4, 437-463. [Crossref]
441. Octavio A. C. Conceição. 2008. A dimensão institucional do processo de crescimento econômico:
inovações e mudanças institucionais, rotinas e tecnologia social. Economia e Sociedade 17:1, 85-105.
[Crossref]
442. S. Metcalfe. Technical Change 1-10. [Crossref]
443. Totti Könnölä, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Robert P. van der Have. 2008. System Transition - Concepts
and Framework for Analysing Nordic Energy System Research and Governance. SSRN Electronic
444. Oleg Smirnov, Allan T. Ingraham. 2008. Social Networks and the News: An Agent-Based Model of
a Media Market. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
445. Totti Könnölä, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Robert P. van der Have. 2008. System Transition Concepts
and Framework for Analysing Energy System Research and Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
446. . The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour . [Crossref]
447. . Bibliographie 270-288. [Crossref]
448. David J. Teece. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28:13, 1319-1350. [Crossref]
449. Mingchun Zhou, Donghan Cai, Hua Chen. 2007. A Solow-Swan model with technological overflow
and catch-up. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 12:6, 975-978. [Crossref]
450. Hermann Kuehnle. 2007. A system of models contribution to production network (PN) theory. Journal
of Intelligent Manufacturing 18:5, 543-551. [Crossref]
451. Peter Ping Li. 2007. Toward an integrated theory of multinational evolution: The evidence of Chinese
multinational enterprises as latecomers. Journal of International Management 13:3, 296-318. [Crossref]
452. Jonathan Perraton, Iona Tarrant. 2007. What does tacit knowledge actually explain?. Journal of
Economic Methodology 14:3, 353-370. [Crossref]
453. Muriel de Oliveira Gavira, Ruy Quadros. Innovation and Technology Management in Brazilian
Subsidiaries in the Electro-Electronic Industry 680-690. [Crossref]
454. Fulvio Castellacci. 2007. EVOLUTIONARY AND NEW GROWTH THEORIES. ARE THEY
CONVERGING?. Journal of Economic Surveys 21:3, 585-627. [Crossref]
455. John F. Tomer. 2007. What is behavioral economics?. The Journal of Socio-Economics 36:3, 463-479.
[Crossref]
456. Milan Zafirovski. 2007. Convergent origins, divergent destinations: sociology's contributions and
connections to economics in a historical and interdisciplinary framework. Social Science Information
46:2, 305-354. [Crossref]
457. Robin Douhan, Gunnar Eliasson, Magnus Henrekson. 2007. Israel M. Kirzner: An Outstanding
Austrian Contributor to the Economics of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 29:1-2,
213-223. [Crossref]
458. Linda Argote, Henrich R. Greve. 2007. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm —40 Years and Counting:
Introduction and Impact. Organization Science 18:3, 337-349. [Crossref]
459. Giovanni Dosi, Luigi Marengo. 2007. Perspective—On the Evolutionary and Behavioral Theories of
Organizations: A Tentative Roadmap. Organization Science 18:3, 491-502. [Crossref]
460. Gerald A. McDermott. 2007. The Politics of Institutional Renovation and Economic Upgrading:
Recombining the Vines That Bind in Argentina. Politics & Society 35:1, 103-144. [Crossref]
461. Nils Stieglitz, Klaus Heine. 2007. Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 28:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
462. Robert Gassler. 2007. Political and Social Economics: Beyond Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. Forum for
Social Economics 36:2, 109-125. [Crossref]
463. John A. Alic. Generation of Variety and Selection of Innovations 171-188. [Crossref]
464. Alice Sindzingre. Explaining Threshold Effects of Globalization on Poverty: An Institutional
Perspective 271-299. [Crossref]
465. Henri L. F. de Groot, Jacques Poot, Martijn J. Smit. 2007. Agglomeration, Innovation and Regional
Development: Theoretical Perspectives and Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
466. Arnab Bhattacharjee, Eduardo Castro, Christopher N. Jensen-Butler. 2007. Evaluating Economic
Theories of Growth and Inequality: A Study of the Danish Economy. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
467. Totti Könnölä, Pablo del Río, Laura Pombo Juárez, Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Gregory Unruh. 2007.
An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Barriers to European Hydrogen RD&D Cooperation. SSRN
468. Adriana Kocornik-MINA, Roger R. STOUGH. 2007. Inertia and Endogenous Factors, Spatial
Dynamics and Regional Economic Development. Studies in Regional Science 37:2, 335-348. [Crossref]
469. Fulvio Castellacci. 2006. A critical realist interpretation of evolutionary growth theorising. Cambridge
Journal of Economics 30:6, 861-880. [Crossref]
470. John Stanley Metcalfe, Ronnie Ramlogan. 2006. Creative Destruction and the Measurement of
Productivity Change. Revue de l'OFCE no 97 bis:5, 373-397. [Crossref]
471. James Ronald Stanfield. 2006. From DIE and NIE toward EE. Journal of Economic Issues 40:2, 249-259.
[Crossref]
472. Tom Kauko. 2006. Expressions of Housing Consumer Preferences: Proposition for a Research Agenda.
Housing, Theory and Society 23:2, 92-108. [Crossref]
473. Giulio Cainelli, Rinaldo Evangelista, Maria Savona. 2006. Innovation and economic performance in
services: a firm-level analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30:3, 435-458. [Crossref]
474. Mie Augier, David J. Teece. 2006. Understanding complex organization: the role of know-how, internal
structure, and human behavior in the evolution of capabilities1. Industrial and Corporate Change 15:2,
395-416. [Crossref]
475. Herbert Dawid. Chapter 25 Agent-based Models of Innovation and Technological Change 1235-1272.
[Crossref]
476. William P. Hall. 2006. Emergence and Growth of Knowledge and Diversity in Hierarchically Complex
Living Systems. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
477. Andreas Ziegler, Jazmin Sejas Nogareda. 2006. Green Management and Green Technology - Exploring
the Causal Relationship. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
478. Giovanni Gavetti. 2005. Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’
Development. Organization Science 16:6, 599-617. [Crossref]
479. Michael Common, Sigrid Stagl. Ecological Economics 64, . [Crossref]
480. Sheri M. Markose. 2005. Computability and Evolutionary Complexity: Markets as Complex Adaptive
Systems (CAS). The Economic Journal 115:504, F159-F192. [Crossref]
481. J. Stanley Metcalfe. Evolutionary concepts in relation to evolutionary economics 391-430. [Crossref]
482. J.S. Metcalfe, R. Ramlogan. 2005. Competition and the regulation of economic development. The
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 45:2-3, 215-235. [Crossref]
483. Fulvio Castellaci, Stine Grodal, Sandro Mendonca, Mona Wibe. 2005. Advances and Challenges in
Innovation Studies. Journal of Economic Issues 39:1, 91-121. [Crossref]
484. Moshe Levy. 2005. Is risk-aversion hereditary?. Journal of Mathematical Economics 41:1-2, 157-168.
[Crossref]
485. H. Schenk. Organisational Economics in an Age of Restructuring, or: How Corporate Strategies Can
Harm Your Economy 333-365. [Crossref]
486. James H. Fowler, Oleg Smirnov. 2005. Dynamic Parties and Social Turnout: An Agent‐Based Model.
American Journal of Sociology 110:4, 1070-1094. [Crossref]
487. John F. Tomer. 2005. What is Behavioral Economics?. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
488. Giovanni Battista Dagnino, Marcello M. Mariani. 2005. Dynamic Gap Bridging and Realized Gap Set
Development: The Strategic Role of the Firm in the Coevolution of Capability Space and Opportunity
Space. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
489. Alice N. Sindzingre. 2005. Explaining Threshold Effects of Globalization on Poverty: An Institutional
Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
490. Arabella Mocciaro Li Destri, Giovanni Battista Dagnino. 2004. Time and strategy: towards a
multitemporal view of the firm. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19:8, 776-794. [Crossref]
491. Giovanni. Gavetti, Daniel A. Levinthal. 2004. 50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the
Perspective of Management Science : Divergent Strands and Possible Integration. Management Science
50:10, 1309-1318. [Crossref]
492. Lars-Erik Cederman, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch. 2004. Conquest and Regime Change: An
Evolutionary Model of the Spread of Democracy and Peace. International Studies Quarterly 48:3,
603-629. [Crossref]
493. Tiziano Raffaelli. 2004. Whatever happened to Marshall's industrial economics?. The European Journal
of the History of Economic Thought 11:2, 209-229. [Crossref]
494. Clem Tisdell. 2004. Economic Competition and Evolution: Are There Lessons from Ecology?.
Contemporary Economic Policy 22:2, 179-193. [Crossref]
495. Werner Güth, Kerstin Pull. 2004. Will equity evolve?: an indirect evolutionary approach. European
Journal of Political Economy 20:1, 273-282. [Crossref]
496. Eduardo Pol, Peter Carroll. 2004. Reviving and assessing the Kuznets law on innovation. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology 13:2, 127-140. [Crossref]
497. Gerard J. Charreaux. 2004. Corporate Governance Theories: From Micro Theories to National Systems
Theories. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
498. Giovanni Battista Dagnino. 2004. Coupling Combinative and Relational Capabilities in
Interorganizational Best Practice Transfer: An Evolutionary Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal .
[Crossref]
499. Philippe Beaugrand. 2004. And Schumpeter Said, "This is How Thou Shalt Grow": Further Quest
for Economic Growth in Poor Countries. IMF Working Papers 04:40, 1. [Crossref]
500. Ajit Singh. 2003. Competition, Corporate Governance and Selection in Emerging Markets. The
Economic Journal 113:491, F443-F464. [Crossref]
501. Constance E. Helfat, Margaret A. Peteraf. 2003. The dynamic resource-based view: capability
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24:10, 997-1010. [Crossref]
502. Guan Gong, Wolfgang Keller. 2003. Convergence and polarization in global income levels: a review
of recent results on the role of international technology diffusion. Research Policy 32:6, 1055-1079.
[Crossref]
503. IAN WILLS. 2003. INFORMATIONAL BARRIERS TO POLLUTION REDUCTION IN
SMALL BUSINESSES. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy 22:2, 84-94.
[Crossref]
504. Michael J. Radzicki. 2003. Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester, and a Foundation for Evolutionary
Economics. Journal of Economic Issues 37:1, 133-173. [Crossref]
505. Sidney G. Winter. 2003. Mistaken Perceptions: Cases and Consequences. British Journal of
506. Steven Orla Kimbrough. Computational Modeling and Explanation 31-57. [Crossref]
507. J.W. Stoelhorst. 2003. The Naturalist View of Universal Darwinism: An Application to the
Evolutionary Theory of the Firm. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
508. Constance E. Helfat, Margaret A. Peteraf. 2003. The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability
Lifecycles. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
509. Giovanni Battista Dagnino. 2003. Bridging the Strategy Gap: Firm Strategy and Coevolution of
Capability Space and Opportunity Space. SSRN Electronic Journal . [Crossref]
510. Geoffrey M. Hodgson. 2003. The Mystery of the Routine. Revue économique 54:2, 355. [Crossref]
511. Claude Lacour, Jean-Bernard Layan, Denis Maillat. 2002. Introduction générale aux volumes « la
science régionale au tournant du siècle ». Revue d’Économie Régionale & Urbaine octobre:4, 515-518.
[Crossref]
512. Alexander Ebner. Governance von Innovationssystemen und die politische Ökonomie der
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit 119-141. [Crossref]
513. Giovanni Battista Dagnino, Marcello M. Mariani. Dynamic gap bridging and realized gap set
development: The strategic role of the firm in the coevolution of capability space and opportunity
space 321-341. [Crossref]
514. Ulrich Witt, Andreas Chai. Evolutionary Economics 3-40. [Crossref]
515. Camilla Jensen, Low Mei Peng. SMEs, Institutions, and Performance 46-64. [Crossref]

Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics: Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics: Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 16, Number 2—Spring 2002—Pages 23– 46

Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics

Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter

M odern economic analysis, oriented toward understanding the workings

y Richard R. Nelson is George Blumenthal Professor of International and Public Affairs,

economics. We begin by exploring what is different about an evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary Processes and Neoclassical Outcomes

Many neoclassical economists seem to hold the view that an evolutionary

Let the apparent immediate determinant of business behavior be anything at

instrumental myth, encouraging neoclassical theorists to get on with their business

evolutionary economists emphasize that a system promoting a variety of experi-

Competence, Learning and Routines

The positive program of evolutionary economics must be built on a view of

Behavioral Continuity: Foundational Issues

In contrast to the usual quest for micro-foundations in economics, seeking

perform and not accessible to consciousness in terms of its specific content.8 It

Evolutionary Analysis of Schumpeterian Competition

Even as modern neoclassical theory took a firm grip on abstract economic

more effective than the other as bombardment is in comparison with forcing

Scholars working in or near the evolutionary tradition have given considerable

Technology, Institutions and Economic Growth

We have highlighted above one of the important strands of research that

as universities, government labs and professional societies. Pursuing the causal

other. A number of studies of industries in which technological innovation is an

Formal Economic Evolutionary Modeling

A considerable development of formal evolutionary models has run parallel to

phenomena: our own effort dedicated to demonstrating that a formal evolutionary

Evolutionary Economics and Interdisciplinary Discourse

As the economics discipline deepened its commitment to the proposition that

You might also like