Hayekian evolution reconsidered: A response to Caldwell

G.M. Hodgson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)


Caldwell (2001. Hodgson on Hayek: a critique, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, 541-55) raises a number of criticisms of Hodgson's (1993. Economics and Evolution: Bringing Life Back into Economics, Cambridge, UK and Ann Arbor, MI, Polity Press and University of Michigan Press) analysis of Hayek. This reply acknowledges the passages in The Constitution of Liberty where Hayek discusses evolutionary ideas. It is also agreed that the description in the secondary literature of Hayek as a 'methodological individualist'is misleading or flawed. However, it is argued that Hayek's neglect of Malthus remains real and problematic. This neglect is connected to Hayek's under-estimation of the scale of the Darwinian intellectual revolution. It is also argued here that Caldwell's attempt to justify Hayek's analytical assumption of the given individual is unconvincing.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)291-300
Number of pages10
JournalCambridge Journal of Economics
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2004


Dive into the research topics of 'Hayekian evolution reconsidered: A response to Caldwell'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this