Of course, the process never ends because genetic mutations mean that new organisms with completely new and perhaps "better-suited" sets of attributes recurrently appear and challenge the older species.A competing theory of evolution is Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck's 1809 theory of "adaptive selection".In the latter part of the 19th Century, economists and other social scientists began appealing to analogies between organisms in an environment to people in society.
Changes in behavior or features, not random "mutations", are what create variety in the Lamarckian scheme.
Modern biology embraces only the Darwinian process, but in the context of social sciences, like economics, the Lamarckian process may actually be better suited than the Darwinian.
Evolutionary economists believe the economy is dynamic, constantly changing and chaotic, rather than always tending toward a state of equilibrium.
The creation of goods and the procurement of supplies for those goods involves many processes that change as technology develops.
Lamarck's argument similarly contends that species with features better-suited to their environment features outdo those worse-suited.
However, unlike Darwin, Lamarck argued that species could "adapt" to their environment during their lifetimes, and that these "adaptations" will be carried over through reproduction.In the free market, the survival of the fittest model is rampant.Consumers have plenty of choices, few firms can fully meet their needs and everything is in a constant state of flux, meaning that many competitors will be obliterated.Indeed, the term "evolutionary" has been bandied about so freely that perhaps the only real definition of it is the following: a theory is said to be "evolutionary" if it is my theory, it is said to be "mechanical" if it is your theory.(!)Early Evolutionary Economics The most popular conception of evolution is Charles Darwin's famous 1859 theory of "natural selection" applied to species of living organisms.American economist Thorstein Veblen came up with the term evolutionary economics.He believed psychological factors presented better explanations for economic behavior than traditional rational choice theory.Schumpeter argued that human entrepreneurs are the main drivers of economic development and that markets are cyclical, moving up and down, as companies constantly compete to find solutions to benefit mankind.One of the biggest lessons that most evolutionary economists agree on is that failure is good and just as important as success.For example, nations in the former Soviet Union, who for years were governed by strict regulations, are likely to struggle more to be creative because they were taught not to think this way for decades.Conflicting histories mean that the same economic policy should not be expected to have the same impact in every country.