124
Nevertheless, under an evolutionary regard, there is hope. According to Witt
(1992), a crucial characteristic of evolutionary economics is associated with change,
as the same author explains: the emphasis is on “becoming rather than being in the
economy” (Witt 1992, p. 405). Following Witt’s insight, the inspirational factor on
the term “evolution” can be then linked to “the capacity of an economy, or some part
of it, to generate change from within” (Witt 1992, p. 406). Therefore, an evolutionary perspective seems more suitable in case of growth within a context that skips
from classical economic conditions to run models given the admission of variances
from inside the economy. Underdeveloped/developing economies are operating,
despite no Pareto Optimal conditions, and in some extraordinary cases, outcomes
would surpass predictions. Thus, the historical evolution of developing economies
should be regarded in their specificities.
According to a Schumpeterian perspective, while invention relies more on technological or scientific development (Research and Development), which is not
always available in underdeveloped or developing economies, innovation can be in
place with the use and application of an invention in a different manner, facilitated
by the presence of financial credit. This aspect may explain how some countries
meet the conditions to creatively innovate whereas others do not. Under the
Schumpeterian point of view from Dopfer (2011), the main aspect related to the
neoclassical model failure is this dynamic of individual behaviour not being properly considered. In the classical doctrine “the activities of individuals had no role to
play” at an objective “machinery” (Dopfer 2011, p. 105).
Dopfer (2011) compares the individual role in the neoclassical model to a passive behaviour, while in his Schumpeterian inspired model, the individual is actively
engaged in changing the reality (Dopfer 2011, p. 105), which includes economy.
This dynamic of individuals overcoming objective laws (Dopfer 2011, p. 106)
seems applicable to underdeveloped and developing economies in their peculiar
manner of improving their economies even though not fully equipped to do so. In
these instances, Schumpeter’s proposal of radical innovation may be suitable to
contemplate underdeveloped and developing economies. Evolutionary economic
perspective certainly can be complimentary and bring new insights for admitting
plasticity and uncertainty of markets as able to promote innovation.
With the Neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economists, not only behaviour with
its potential to change over time is included in the model, but also technological,
organisational and institutional change are recognised as “the core drivers of economic growth” (Foster and Metcalfe 2012, p. 425). From analysing underdeveloped
or developing countries, in many cases, there is no basic technological development; organisations did not achieve a homogeneous pattern for operating when
compared to developed economies; and not all institutions accomplish with basic
needs of individuals. Despite those unfulfilled requirements, sometimes entrepreneurs may surpass those challenging realities creating (and innovating). According
to Schumpeter (1942), innovation occurs as a disruptive process, when energetic
entrepreneurs break the circle destroying an existing course of the economy by
introducing new combinations. The entrepreneur “revolutionizes the economic
structure from within” in a constant process of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter
A. C. Ribeiro-Duthie
Nevertheless, under an evolutionary regard, there is hope. According to Witt
(1992), a crucial characteristic of evolutionary economics is associated with change,
as the same author explains: the emphasis is on “becoming rather than being in the
economy” (Witt 1992, p. 405). Following Witt’s insight, the inspirational factor on
the term “evolution” can be then linked to “the capacity of an economy, or some part
of it, to generate change from within” (Witt 1992, p. 406). Therefore, an evolutionary perspective seems more suitable in case of growth within a context that skips
from classical economic conditions to run models given the admission of variances
from inside the economy. Underdeveloped/developing economies are operating,
despite no Pareto Optimal conditions, and in some extraordinary cases, outcomes
would surpass predictions. Thus, the historical evolution of developing economies
should be regarded in their specificities.
According to a Schumpeterian perspective, while invention relies more on technological or scientific development (Research and Development), which is not
always available in underdeveloped or developing economies, innovation can be in
place with the use and application of an invention in a different manner, facilitated
by the presence of financial credit. This aspect may explain how some countries
meet the conditions to creatively innovate whereas others do not. Under the
Schumpeterian point of view from Dopfer (2011), the main aspect related to the
neoclassical model failure is this dynamic of individual behaviour not being properly considered. In the classical doctrine “the activities of individuals had no role to
play” at an objective “machinery” (Dopfer 2011, p. 105).
Dopfer (2011) compares the individual role in the neoclassical model to a passive behaviour, while in his Schumpeterian inspired model, the individual is actively
engaged in changing the reality (Dopfer 2011, p. 105), which includes economy.
This dynamic of individuals overcoming objective laws (Dopfer 2011, p. 106)
seems applicable to underdeveloped and developing economies in their peculiar
manner of improving their economies even though not fully equipped to do so. In
these instances, Schumpeter’s proposal of radical innovation may be suitable to
contemplate underdeveloped and developing economies. Evolutionary economic
perspective certainly can be complimentary and bring new insights for admitting
plasticity and uncertainty of markets as able to promote innovation.
With the Neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economists, not only behaviour with
its potential to change over time is included in the model, but also technological,
organisational and institutional change are recognised as “the core drivers of economic growth” (Foster and Metcalfe 2012, p. 425). From analysing underdeveloped
or developing countries, in many cases, there is no basic technological development; organisations did not achieve a homogeneous pattern for operating when
compared to developed economies; and not all institutions accomplish with basic
needs of individuals. Despite those unfulfilled requirements, sometimes entrepreneurs may surpass those challenging realities creating (and innovating). According
to Schumpeter (1942), innovation occurs as a disruptive process, when energetic
entrepreneurs break the circle destroying an existing course of the economy by
introducing new combinations. The entrepreneur “revolutionizes the economic
structure from within” in a constant process of “creative destruction” (Schumpeter
A. C. Ribeiro-Duthie