Editing Evolutionary economics (section)

==Criticism==

The emergence of modern evolutionary economics was welcomed by the critics of the neoclassical mainstream.<ref name="Hodgson2007"></ref><ref name="Hodgson2012"></ref> However, the field, especially the approach by Nelson and Winter, has also drawn critical attitude from other [[heterodox economics|heterodox economists]]. A year after ''An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change'' was published, [[Philip Mirowski]] expressed his doubts that this framework represented genuine evolutionary economics research (i.e., in the vein of Veblen) and not just a variant of neoclassical methodology, especially since the authors admitted their framework could include neoclassical orthodoxy.<ref name="Mirowski1983">[[Philip Mirowski|Mirowski, P.]] (1983). An Evolutionary Theory of Economics Change: A Review Article. ''Journal of Economic Issues, 17''(3), pp. 757-768.</ref> Some Veblenian [[institutional economics|institutionalists]] claim this framework is only a “protective modification of the neoclassical economics and is antithetical to Veblen's evolutionary economics.”<ref name="JoTaeHee2020">Jo, Tae-Hee (2020). ''A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter's Evolutionary Theory''. MPRA Paper No. 10138. [https://web.archive.org/web/20210515085912/https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/101380/1/MPRA_paper_101380.pdf Archived] from [https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/101380/1/MPRA_paper_101380.pdf] on May 15, 2021.</ref> Another possible shortcoming (recognized by the proponents of modern evolutionary economics) is that the field is heterogenous, with no convergence on an integrated approach.<ref name="Hodgson2012"></ref>