The Past and Future of Evolutionary Economics : Some Reflections Based on New Bibliometric Evidence

This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of the following article: Geoffrey M. Hodgson, and Juha-Antti Lamberg, ‘The past and future of evolutionary economics: some reflections based on new bibliometric evidence’, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, first online 20 June 2016. The final publication is available at Springer via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0044-3 © Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics 2016The modern wave of ‘evolutionary economics’ was launched with the classic study by Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter (1982). This paper reports a broad bibliometric analysis of ‘evolutionary’ research in the disciplines of management, business, economics, and sociology over 25 years from 1986 to 2010. It confirms that Nelson and Winter (1982) is an enduring nodal reference point for this broad field. The bibliometric evidence suggests that ‘evolutionary economics’ has benefitted from the rise of business schools and other interdisciplinary institutions, which have provided a home for evolutionary terminology, but it has failed to nurture a strong unifying core narrative or theory, which in turn could provide superior answers to important questions. This bibliometric evidence also shows that no strong cluster of general theoretical research immediately around Nelson and Winter (1982) has subsequently emerged. It identifies developmental problems in a partly successful but fragmented field. Future research in ‘evolutionary economics’ needs a more integrated research community with shared conceptual narratives and common research questions, to promote conversation and synergy between diverse clusters of research.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Co-bedding as a Comfort measure For Twins undergoing painful procedures (CComForT Trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Co-bedding, a developmental care strategy, is the practice of caring for diaper clad twins in one incubator (versus separating and caring for each infant in separate incubators), thus creating the opportunity for skin-to-skin contact and touch between the twins. In studies of mothers and their infants, maternal skin-to-skin contact has been shown to decrease procedural pain response according to both behavioral and physiological indicators in very preterm neonates. It is uncertain if this comfort is derived solely from maternal presence or from stabilization of regulatory processes from direct skin contact. The intent of this study is to compare the comfort effect of co-bedding (between twin infants who are co-bedding and those who are not) on infant pain response and physiologic stability during a tissue breaking procedure (heelstick).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Medically stable preterm twin infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit will be randomly assigned to a co-bedding group or a standard care group. Pain response will be measured by physiological and videotaped facial reaction using the Premature Infant Pain Profile scale (PIPP). Recovery from the tissue breaking procedure will be determined by the length of time for heart rate and oxygen saturation to return to baseline. Sixty four sets of twins (n = 128) will be recruited into the study. Analysis and inference will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If twin contact while co-bedding is determined to have a comforting effect for painful procedures, then changes in current neonatal care practices to include co-bedding may be an inexpensive, non invasive method to help maintain physiologic stability and decrease the long term psychological impact of procedural pain in this high risk population. Knowledge obtained from this study will also add to existing theoretical models with respect to the exact mechanism of comfort through touch.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00917631</p

Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: key challenges for future research

How do social organizations evolve? How do they adapt to environmental pressures? What resources and capabilities determine their survival within dynamic competition? Charles Darwin’s seminal work The Origin of Species (1859) has provided a significant impact on the development of the management and organization theory literatures on organizational evolution. This article introduces the JMG Special Issue focused on Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival. We discuss key themes in the organizational evolution research that have emerged in recent years. These include the increasing adoption of the co-evolutionary approach, with a particular focus on the definition of appropriate units of analysis, such as routines, and related challenges associated with exploring the relationship between co-evolution, re-use of knowledge, adaptation, and exaptation processes. We then introduce the three articles that we have finally accepted in this Special Issue after an extensive, multi-round, triple blind-review process. We briefly outline how each of these articles contributes to understanding among scholars, practitioners and policy makers of the continuous evolutionary processes within and among social organizations and systems

Stakeholder Relationships and Social Welfare: A Behavioral Theory of Contributions to Joint Value Creation

Firms play a crucial role in furthering social welfare through their ability to foster stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation, i.e., value creation that involves a public-good dilemma due to high task and outcome interdependence - leading to what economists have labeled the ‘team production problem’. We build on relational models theory to examine how individual stakeholders’ contributions to joint value creation are shaped by stakeholders’ mental representations of their relationships with the other participants in value creation, and how these mental representations are affected by the perceived behavior of the firm. Stakeholder theory typically contrasts a broadly-defined ‘relational’ approach to stakeholder management with a ‘transactional’ approach based on the price mechanism - and has argued that the former is more likely to contribute to social welfare than the latter. Our theory supports this prediction for joint value creation, but also implies that the dichotomy on which it is based is too coarse-grained: there are three distinct ways to trigger higher contributions to joint value creation than through a ‘transactional’ approach. Our theory also helps explain the tendency for firms and their stakeholders to converge on ‘transactional’ relationships, despite their relative inefficiency in the context of joint value creation

The market perspective of in-car information products.

Item does not contain fulltextPaper at 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. Berlin, 21-24 October 1997.[S.l. : s.n.

Effecten van de proeven met een dynamische snelheidslimiet op de Nederlandse autosnelwegen

In het project Dynamax is in 2009 en 2010 een aantal praktijkproeven met dynamische snelheidslimieten uitgevoerd, waarbij telkens één of twee Dynamaxmaatregelen zijn ingezet op een bij die maatregel passende locatie. De snelheidslimiet werd verhoogd als dat mogelijk was (bij weinig verkeer) of verlaagd als dat nodig was (als er schokgolven ontstonden, als de concentraties fijn stof te hoog werden of als het hard regende). Voor iedere maatregel is een algoritme gebruikt dat definieert hoe de dynamische snelheidslimiet afhangt van de omstandigheden. De proeven worden uitgebreid geëvalueerd met behulp van lus- en cameradata. Er wordt gekeken naar veranderingen in rijgedrag, de verkeersafwikkeling, verkeersveiligheid, luchtkwaliteit en geluidsniveaus. Ook wordt een draagvlakstudie uitgevoerd. De eerste resultaten van de evaluatie laten zien dat de weggebruikers de dynamische snelheidslimieten waarderen en hun gedrag aanpassen, zodat de gewenste effecten worden bereikt en de neveneffecten beperkt blijven

Routenavigatie en verkeersinformatie: de opkomst van in-car systemen.

Item does not contain fulltex