Theoretical Architecture: Micro-Meso-Macro

How shall we posit the analytical unit of a population in an architecture that, tradition­ally, is composed of micro and macro? The unit is difficult to associate with either micro (organism; agents), or with macro (nature; economy); it clearly assumes, as indicated above, an intermediate position.

The concept of rule structure exemplified by Smith’s division of labour lacks a Darwinian type of self-generating (meso) trajectory that would drive endogenously a continuous evolutionary dynamic. Smith’s model is proto-evolutionary; to allow for a theoretical statement about the evolution of economic structure, we require Darwin.

The question is whether or in what way a Darwinian approach may help us in the task of connecting the process units into a structure in order to explain the evolution of the economy as a change in its structure. We have defined structure by its complementarities,

such as heterogeneous agents performing complementary production tasks. The struc­ture of knowledge and labour in an economy is generally based on complementarities.

It is quite clear that, in nature, nothing like a Smithian kind of division of labour exists. In nature there are, of course, hunter-prey relationships, co-variation among species and interdependences between them in the use of resources and so on, but there is no structure in a sense of complementary tasks or functional assignments aimed at common ends. Not only have we never seen a dog exchanging bones with another but also has there been no empirical indication that dogs would cooperate on the basis of assigned tasks for a common result. The evidence becomes much more robust as we extend the observation to the whole of nature, considering cooperation among various species, say dogs, cats and chimpanzees. While Smith cannot explain process, Darwin cannot explain structure. The most challenging task for evolutionary economics lies in integrating Smith and Darwin.

Analytically, we have a structure component (Smith) and a process component (Darwin). The structure component is a single rule (or rule composite) that relates to other rules as part of a structure. The process component is a trajectory that tells the “life story” of that rule as a process of physical actualisation in an agent population. Both combined represent the basic analytical unit: the meso unit.

To ease the procedure of falsification with respect to this proposition, let the conclu­sion be stated explicitly: without meso neither structure nor process can be explained endogenously. Neoclassical economics is a most conspicuous case in point expounding the ineptitude to cope endogenously with structure and evolutionary change.