ecr-journalЭкономическая наука современной РоссииEconomics of Contemporary Russia1609-14422618-8996Regional Public Organization for Assistance to the Development of Institutions of the Department of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences10.33293/1609-1442-2019-2(85)-35-52ecr-journal-443Research ArticleАКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ ТЕОРИИACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICSЭво-дево: парадигмальный вызов для институционально-эволюционного анализаEvo-Devo: Paradigmal Challenge for Institutional-Evolutionary AnalysisФроловДаниил ПетровичFrolovDaniil P.

д.э.н., профессор, профессор кафедры мировой экономики и экономической теории

Волгоград

Volgograd

ecodev@mail.ruВолгоградский государственный технический университетРоссияVolgograd State Technical UniversityRussian Federation201917072019023552Copyright © Фролов Д.П., 20192019Фролов Д.П.Frolov D.P.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.ecr-journal.ru/jour/article/view/443

В современной биологической науке происходит смена парадигмы эволюционных исследований, связанная с отказом от принципов неодарвинизма. В статье обсуждается перспектива использования концептуальных идей эволюционной биологии развития (эво-дево) в качестве новых доминирующих метафор институционально-эволюционного анализа. Так, метафоры конструирования ниши и системы развития подвигают отказаться от экстернализма (закрепления за средой ключевой роли в отборе) и дихотомического мышления (противопоставления акторов и среды, микро- и макроанализа). Развиваемая в этом ключе концепция институциональных конфигураций позволяет совместить в единую аналитическую схему институциональные, агентские и средовые факторы и их интерактивное взаимодействие. Метафора бриколажа показывает важность отказа от оптимизационных концепций эволюции и односторонне негативной трактовки институциональных аномалий (дисфункций, провалов, ловушек и др.) В пользу изучения институциональных клуджей – как квазиоптимальных персистентных институтов, создаваемых непрофессиональными акторами, и позитивного переосмысления аномальных институтов как основного продукта институциональной сложности. Метафора модульности связана с отказом от мышления в духе традиционных тотально интегрированных систем и переходом к исследованиям ассамбляжей – сверхсложных институциональных систем, базирующихся на множественных логиках и порядках, для которых неоднородность, фрагментарность и гибридность являются органичными свойствами и эволюционными преимуществами.

In modern biological science, there is a change in the paradigm of evolutionary research associated with the rejection of neo-Darwinism principles. The article discusses the prospect of using the conceptual ideas of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) as the new dominant metaphors of institutional-evolutionary analysis. For example, metaphors of niche construction and developmental system stimulate the rejection of externalism (securing the key role in selection for the environment) and dichotomous thinking (opposition of actors and the environment, micro- and macro-analysis). The concept of institutional configurations developed in this vein makes it possible to analytically combine institutional, agential and environmental factors in their interaction into a unified framework. The metaphor of bricolage actualizes the importance of abandoning the optimization concepts of evolution and one-sidedly negative interpretation of institutional anomalies (dysfunctions, failures, traps, etc.) in favor of studying institutional kludges as quasi-optimal persistent institutions created by non-professional actors, and positively rethinking anomalous institutions as a main output of institutional complexity. The metaphor of modularity is associated with the abandonment of thinking in the spirit of traditional totally integrated systems and the transition to the research of assemblages – super-complex institutional systems based on multiple logics and orders for which heterogeneity, fragmentation and hybridity are organic properties and evolutionary advantages.

эволюцияинститутыакторыинституциональная сложностьинституциональные конфигурацииинституциональный бриколажинституциональные клуджиконструирование нишитрансплантация институтовинституциональные аномалиимодульностьинституциональные ассамбляжигибридные организацииevolutioninstitutionsactorsinstitutional complexityinstitutional configurationsinstitutional bricolageinstitutional kludgesniche constructioninstitutional transplantationinstitutional anomaliesmodularityinstitutional assemblageshybrid organizationsСтатья подготовлена при финансовой поддержке Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований (проект № 18-010-00832).The article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for basic Research (Project No. 18-010-00832).ReferencesДокинз Р. Расширенный фенотип: длинная рука гена. М.: Астрель; CORPUS, 2010.Baguna J., Garcia-Fernandez J. (2003). Evo-devo: The long and winding road. International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 47, no. 7–8, pp. 705–713.Кэрролл Ш. Бесконечное число самых прекрасных форм. Новая наука эво-дево и эволюция царства животных. М.: Аст; CORPUS, 2015.Besharov M., Smith W. (2014). Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 364–381.Латур Б. Пересборка социального: введение в акторно-сетевую теорию. М.: Изд. дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2014.Carroll S. (2015). The infinite number of the most beautiful forms. New science evo-devo and the evolution of the animal kingdom. Moscow, AST, CORPUS (in Russian).Лукша П.О. Стратегии конструирования ниши в ситуациях технологического доминирования (случай Java и Sun Microsystems). М.: Институт экономики РАН, 2009.Carroll S.B. (2008). Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 25–36.Норт Д. Понимание процесса экономических изменений. М.: Изд. дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2010.Cleaver F. (2012). Development through bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resources Management. New York, Routledge.Нотов А.А. Псевдоциклические сходства и структурная эволюция модульных организмов // Известия РАН. Серия биологическая. 2016. № 3. С. 276–285.Clune J., Mouret J.B., Lipson H. (2013). The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 280, no. 1755, pp. 2012–2863.Полтерович В.М. Трансплантация экономических институтов // Экономическая наука современной России. 2001. № 3. С. 24–50.Dawkins R. (2010). An extended phenotype: The long arm of a gene. Moscow, Astrel, CORPUS (in Russian).Фролов Д. Методологический институционализм 2.0: от институтов – к институциональным конфигурациям // Вопросы экономики. 2016. № 7. С. 147–160.DeLanda M. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.Baguna J., Garcia-Fernandez J. Evo-devo: The long and winding road // International Journal of Developmental biology. 2003. Vol. 47. № 7–8. P. 705–713.Ely J. C. (2011). Kludged. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 210–231.Besharov M., Smith W. Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications // Academy of Management Review. 2014. Vol. 39. № 3. Р. 364–381.Frolov D. (2016). Methodological institutionalism 2.0: from institutions to institutional configurations. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 7, pp. 147–160 (in Russian).Carroll S.B. Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution // Cell. 2008. Vol. 134. № 1. Р. 25–36.Giulianotti R. (2002). Supporters, followers, fans, and flaneurs: A taxonomy of spectator identities in football. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25–46.Cleaver F. Development through bricolage: Rethinking institutions for natural resources management. N.Y.: Routledge, 2012.Gnyawali D.R., Charleton T.R. (2018). Nuances in the interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition. Journal of Management, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 2511–2534.Clune J., Mouret J.B., Lipson H. The evolutionary origins of modularity // Proceedings of the Royal Society b: biological Sciences. 2013. Vol. 280. № 1755. Р. 2012–2863.Greenwood R., Raynard M., Kodeih F., Micelotta E.R., Lounsbury M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 317–371.DeLanda M. Assemblage theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.Griffiths P., Stotz K. (2018). Developmental systems theory as a process theory. In: Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of biology. D. J. Nicholson, J. Dupre (eds.). Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 225–245.Ely J.C. Kludged // American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2011. Vol. 3. № 3. Р. 210–231.Guerrero-Bosagna C. (2017). Evolution with no reason: A neutral view on epigenetic changes, genomic variability, and evolutionary novelty. BioScience, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 469–476.Giulianotti R. Supporters, followers, fans, and flaneurs: A taxonomy of spectator identities in football // Journal of Sport and Social Issues. 2002. Vol. 26. № 1. Р. 25–46.Harper D.A. (2018). Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: An introduction. Journal of Institutional Economics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 975–1001.Gnyawali D.R., Charleton T. R. Nuances in the Interplay of competition and cooperation: Towards a theory of coopetition // Journal of Management. 2018. Vol. 44. № 7. Р. 2511–2534.Hodgson G.M. (1988). Economics and Institutions. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.Greenwood R., Raynard M., Kodeih F., Micelotta E.R., Lounsbury M. Institutional complexity and organizational responses // The Academy of Management Annals. 2011. Vol. 5. № 1. Р. 317–371.Hodgson G.M., Knudsen T. (2006). Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–19.Griffiths P., Stotz K. Developmental systems theory as a process theory // Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of biology / D. J. Nicholson, J. Dupre (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. P. 225–245.Holland P.W.H., Marletaz F., Maeso I., Dunwell T.L., Paps J. (2017). New genes from old: Asymmetric divergence of gene duplicates and the evolution of development. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, vol. 372, no. 1713, pp. 1–11.Guerrero-Bosagna C. Evolution with no reason: A neutral view on epigenetic changes, genomic variability, and evolutionary novelty // bioScience. 2017. Vol. 67. № 5. P. 469–476.Jacob F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science, vol. 196, no. 4295, pp. 1161–1166.Harper D.A. Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: An introduction // Journal of Institutional Economics. 2018. Vol. 14. № 6. Р. 975–1001.Kampourakis K., Minelli A. (2014). Understanding evolution: Why evo-devo matters. BioScience, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 381–382.Hodgson G.M. Economics and Institutions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.Koonin E.V., Wolf Y.I. (2009). Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian? Biology Direct, vol. 4, art. 42, pp. 1–14.Hodgson G.M., Knudsen T. Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough // Journal of Economic behavior & Organization. 2006. Vol. 61. № 1. P. 1–19.Laland K.N., O’brien M.J. (2011). Cultural Niche Construction: An introduction. Biological Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 191–202.Holland P.W.H., Marletaz F., Maeso I., Dunwell T.L., Paps J. New genes from old: Asymmetric divergence of gene duplicates and the evolution of development // Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series b, biological sciences. 2017. Vol. 372. № 1713. Р. 1–11.Laland K.N., Odling-Smee F.J., Hoppitt W., Uller T. (2013). More on how and why: Cause and effect in biology revisited. Biology & Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 719–745.Jacob F. Evolution and tinkering // Science. 1977. Vol. 196. № 4295. P. 1161–1166.Laland K.N., Uller T., Feldman M.W., Sterelny K., Müller G.B., Moczek A., Jablonka E., Odling-Smee J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 282, no. 1813, pp. 1–14.Kampourakis K., Minelli A. Understanding evolution: Why evo-devo matters // bioScience. 2014. Vol. 64. № 5. Р. 381–382.Latour B. (2014). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Moscow, Higher School of Economics (in Russian).Koonin E.V., Wolf Y.I. Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian? // biology Direct. 2009. Vol. 4. Art. 42. P. 1–14.Liagouras G. (2017). The challenge of Evo-Devo: Implications for evolutionary economists. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 795–823.Laland K.N., O’Brien M.J. Cultural niche construction: An introduction // Biological Theory. 2011. Vol. 6. № 3. P. 191–202.Luksha P.O. (2009). Niche construction strategies in technological dominance situations (the case of Java and Sun Microsystems). Moscow, Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).Laland K.N., Odling-Smee F.J., Hoppitt W., Uller T. More on how and why: Cause and effect in biology revisited // biology & Philosophy. 2013. Vol. 28. № 5. Р. 719–745.Marcus G. (2009). How does the mind work? Insights from biology. Topics in Cognitive Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 145–172.Laland K.N., Uller T., Feldman M. W., Sterelny K., Müller G.B., Moczek A., Jablonka E., Odling-Smee J. The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions // Proceedings of the Royal Society b: biological Sciences. 2015. Vol. 282. № 1813. P. 1–14.Martin R., Sunley P. (2015). Towards a developmental turn in evolutionary economic geography? Regional Studies, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 712–732.Liagouras G. The challenge of Evo-Devo: Implications for evolutionary economists // Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 2017. Vol. 27. № 4. P. 795–823.Muller G.B. (2017). Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1–11.Marcus G. How Does the Mind Work? Insights from biology // Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009. Vol. 1. № 1. Р. 145–172North D. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change. Moscow, Higher School of Economics (in Russian).Martin R., Sunley P. Towards a developmental turn in evolutionary economic geography? // Regional Studies. 2015. Vol. 49. № 5. Р. 712–732.Notov A.A. (2016). Pseudocyclic similarities and structural evolution of modular organisms. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Biological series, no. 3, pp. 276–285 (in Russian).Muller G.B. Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary // Interface Focus. 2017. Vol. 7. № 5. Р. 1–11.O’Malley M.A. (2009). Making knowledge in synthetic biology: Design meets kludge. Biological Theory, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 378–389.O’Malley M.A. Making knowledge in synthetic biology: Design meets kludge // Biological Theory. 2009. Vol. 4. № 4. P. 378–389.Odling-Smee J. (2010). Niche Inheritance. In: Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. M. Pigliucci, G.B. Müller (eds.). Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 175–208.Odling-Smee J. Niche inheritance // Evolution: The Extended Synthesis / M. Pigliucci, G.b. Müller (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010. P. 175–208.Ostrom E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Pelikan P. (2011). Evolutionary developmental econo mics: how to generalize Darwinism fruitfully to help comprehend economic change. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 341–366.Pelikan P. Evolutionary developmental economics: How to generalize Darwinism fruitfully to help comprehend economic change // Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 2011. Vol. 21. № 2. Р. 341–366.Polterovich V.M. (2001). Transplantation of economic institutions. Economic science of modern Russia, no. 3, pp. 24–50 (in Russian).Schwab D.B., Moczek A.P. Evo-Devo and niche construction // Evolutionary Developmental biology: A Reference Guide / L. Nuno de la Rosa, G. Muller (eds.). Cham: Springer, 2018. P. 1–14.Schwab D.B., Moczek A.P. (2018). Evo-Devo and Niche Construction. In: Evolutionary Developmental biology: A Reference Guide. L. Nuno de la Rosa, G. Muller (eds.). Cham., Springer, pp. 1–14.Wagner G.P., Pavlicev M., Cheverud J.M. The road to modularity // Nature Reviews Genetics. 2007. Vol. 8. № 12. P. 921–931.Wagner G.P., Pavlicev M., Cheverud J.M. (2007). The road to modularity. Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 921–931.Wake M.H. Organisms and Organization // Biological Theory. 2008. Vol. 3. № 3. P. 213–223.Wake M.H. (2008). Organisms and Organization. Biological Theory, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 213–223.Wilkins J.S. The appearance of Lamarckism in the evolution of culture // Darwinism and evolutionary economics / J. Laurent, J. Nightingale (eds.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001. P. 160–183.Wilkins J.S. (2001). The appearance of Lamarckism in the evolution of culture. In: Darwinism and evolutionary economics. J. Laurent, J. Nightingale (eds.). Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 160–183.Witt U.(ed.). Explaining process and change: Approaches to evolutionary economics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992.Witt U. (ed.). (1992). Explaining process and change: Approaches to evolutionary economics. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.Zagnoli P., Radicchi E. The football-fan community as a determinant stakeholder in value co-creation // Sport in Society. 2010. Vol. 13. № 10. Р. 1532–1551.Zagnoli P., Radicchi E. (2010). The football-fan community as a determinant stakeholder in value co-creation. Sport in Society, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1532–1551.Zhang D.-X. Are we really seeing the big picture? Some reflections on the current debates in evolutionary biology // Current Zoology. 2015. Vol. 61. № 1. Р. 217–220.Zhang D.-X. (2015). Are we really seeing the big picture? Some reflections on the current debates in evolutionary biology. Current Zoology, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 217–220.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.