Many of the suggested additions to my reading list in evolution and economics came from the fields of evolutionary economics and complexity theory. While my area of interest is sometimes described as “evolutionary economics”, evolutionary economics is a label generally applied to the study of the interactions of firms, institutions and agents in the economy using an evolutionary methodology. Businesses search the landscape for technology and other sources of competitive advantage, and those business modules (technologies, plans) with higher fitness are replicated and spread.

Over the last three to four decades, the social sciences have been subject to increasing examination under an evolutionary framework. Leading the charge into consumer and marketing theory has been Gad Saad, a pioneer of evolutionary consumer psychology who was responsible for the first evolutionary psychology papers to appear in any consumer and marketing journals. The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption is Saad’s “academic book”, in which he argues that introducing an evolutionary framework into the analysis of consumer behaviour and marketing theory can provide an explanation for consumption patterns that cultural critiques struggle to provide.

In 2010, Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita and Edward O Wilson had their paper The evolution of eusociality published in Nature. They argued that inclusive fitness could not explain eusociality, and that competition between groups was required as an explanatory factor. The anti-group selection forces were quick to mobilise. Apart from the many blog posts and column inches, Nature published a response with 137 signatories defending the concept of inclusive fitness. One paragraph by Carl Zimmer captures (for me) where the argument is at:

Below is a suggested reading list for someone interested in the intersection of economics and evolutionary biology. If you have any recommendations for additions, please let me know. 1. Books at the intersection Gregory Clark’s (2008) A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World: The Industrial Revolution was triggered by the reproductive success of the rich, as their traits spread downward through society. Gregory Clark’s (2013) The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility: Social mobility is low across countries and time because there is a genetic component to social status.

I have added a new page with a suggested reading list for those interested in the intersection of economics and evolutionary biology. It is here, and you can see it in the menu bar across the top of the page. The list is a work is progress, and I plan to update it as new sources emerge or are suggested (or when I realise what oversights I have made). I also intend to constrain it to the best sources, rather than being a complete list on every thought on the topic.

At the start of the concluding chapter in Gad Saad’s The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption, Saad quotes Kenrick and Simpson as follows: Nisbett introduced the series [on evolution and social cognition at the University of Michigan] by saying that he once thought every psychology department would need to hire an evolutionary psychologist, but he had changed his mind. Instead, Nisbett predicted that evolutionary theory will come to play the same role in psychology as it currently assumes in biology: “Not every psychologist will be an evolutionary psychologist, but every psychologist will be aware of the perspective and will have to address its explanations and constraints in his or her own work” (Nisbett, 1995, personal communication).

Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis have an interesting reputation within the fields of economics and evolutionary biology. The recent paper of Nowak and colleagues has given Bowles and Gintis some competition as the most prominent advocates of a group selectionist approach (or multi-level selection as Nowak and colleagues would term it), but I still have not come across anyone in evolutionary biology who will argue for the importance group selection to the extent they will (as this video of Herb Gintis demonstrates).

In my recent post on whether children are normal goods (demand for children increasing with income), I dodged questions around the effect of education. Most recent studies into the effect of income on children control for the level of education, as did Bryan Caplan in his analysis that found a positive correlation between income and children in the United States. I am torn over whether controlling for education gives us meaningful information.

Group selection advocates often describe how human cooperation could only have evolved through competition between groups. I have wondered how these advocates view modern day group competition, particularly in the form of tribalism and patriotism. Should we continue to engage in group competition to allow cooperation to flourish? This article by David Sloan Wilson gives one perspective. Some of the more interesting quotes: Even small groups can become dysfunctional (i.e., fail to “constitute themselves”) if the analogs of patriotism and civic duty are absent.

From Michael Shermer’s review of Robert Frank’s The Darwin Economy: [S]exual selection may very well account for most of characteristics that we so admire about our species: art, music, humor, literature, poetry, fashion, dance and, more generally, creativity and intelligence. Science itself may be a byproduct of the cognitive process of trying to impress others in order to gain status and mates by making breakthrough discoveries and formulating important new theories.