125
1942, p. 83), and this is an essential role for economic development (Schumpeter
1952/1997).
In this sense, despite economies of underdeveloped and developing countries are
not standardised models to which classical economic laws could be applied to generate predictable patterns of solutions, their realities of uncertainty could benefit
from an evolutionary analysis as well as to contribute for building economic knowledge. Based on Malerba et al. (1999), one could say that singular realities may
constitute land to grow knowledge even if based on empirical evidence. This leads
to his assumption that “theorizing” is about some particular contexts (Malerba et al.
1999, p. 37). It seems that within the evolutionary perspective, there is room to
focus on diverse realities and on what this shift may add to the understanding of
economic dynamics. Malerba et al. (1999) contribute showing through an evolutionary history-friendly approach that “what economists know about the economic
world comes in the form of relatively detailed knowledge about particular contexts”
(Malerba et al. 1999, p. 37). Cimoli and Katz (2003) when analysing Latin America,
for instance, observed that “undergoing fundamental changes in the model of production organization” were “gradually enforcing the creation of a new, more competitive (…) pattern of development” (Cimoli and Katz 2003, p. 389). However,
they also observed that “productivity growth has not been rapid enough, nor has the
pattern of production specialization been transformed in the direction of activities
with higher value added” (Cimoli and Katz 2003, p. 389) in those countries. Thus,
the process of creative destruction cannot assure to this group of underdeveloped
and developing economies a macro level of stability. Of course, there remain market
asymmetries and bounded rationalities, as well as lack of institutional and organisational support to drive their process of development – which are termed meso rules,
or institutional structures (Dopfer 2011). It seems that the uncertainty of economic
environment in those countries cannot assure innovation if basic needs provided by
meso structures are not a guarantee. The entrepreneur must spend his energy fighting for standards of living and working. Therefore, beyond theory, empirical evidence reinforces the need of reviewing some classical concepts and recognising the
limitations of evolutionary economic approach as well.
The example of fair trade may illustrate how the alternative model addresses
innovation but also depends upon meso structures, which the trade model recognises in importance by assuring them through the social premium. The fair trade
model provides stable income to marginalised producers from underdeveloped/
developing countries at one hand. On another hand, through the “social premium”,
it creates conditions to finance “meso structures” for the producer’s community
socio-economic and environmental development. However, the fair trade movement
is a singular contribution within the course of the entire economy. It seems there is
potential that the movement’s impact could be expanded with support of government policies and multistakeholder partnerships, broadening its social change benefits and sustainable development targets and vision.
9 SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
1942, p. 83), and this is an essential role for economic development (Schumpeter
1952/1997).
In this sense, despite economies of underdeveloped and developing countries are
not standardised models to which classical economic laws could be applied to generate predictable patterns of solutions, their realities of uncertainty could benefit
from an evolutionary analysis as well as to contribute for building economic knowledge. Based on Malerba et al. (1999), one could say that singular realities may
constitute land to grow knowledge even if based on empirical evidence. This leads
to his assumption that “theorizing” is about some particular contexts (Malerba et al.
1999, p. 37). It seems that within the evolutionary perspective, there is room to
focus on diverse realities and on what this shift may add to the understanding of
economic dynamics. Malerba et al. (1999) contribute showing through an evolutionary history-friendly approach that “what economists know about the economic
world comes in the form of relatively detailed knowledge about particular contexts”
(Malerba et al. 1999, p. 37). Cimoli and Katz (2003) when analysing Latin America,
for instance, observed that “undergoing fundamental changes in the model of production organization” were “gradually enforcing the creation of a new, more competitive (…) pattern of development” (Cimoli and Katz 2003, p. 389). However,
they also observed that “productivity growth has not been rapid enough, nor has the
pattern of production specialization been transformed in the direction of activities
with higher value added” (Cimoli and Katz 2003, p. 389) in those countries. Thus,
the process of creative destruction cannot assure to this group of underdeveloped
and developing economies a macro level of stability. Of course, there remain market
asymmetries and bounded rationalities, as well as lack of institutional and organisational support to drive their process of development – which are termed meso rules,
or institutional structures (Dopfer 2011). It seems that the uncertainty of economic
environment in those countries cannot assure innovation if basic needs provided by
meso structures are not a guarantee. The entrepreneur must spend his energy fighting for standards of living and working. Therefore, beyond theory, empirical evidence reinforces the need of reviewing some classical concepts and recognising the
limitations of evolutionary economic approach as well.
The example of fair trade may illustrate how the alternative model addresses
innovation but also depends upon meso structures, which the trade model recognises in importance by assuring them through the social premium. The fair trade
model provides stable income to marginalised producers from underdeveloped/
developing countries at one hand. On another hand, through the “social premium”,
it creates conditions to finance “meso structures” for the producer’s community
socio-economic and environmental development. However, the fair trade movement
is a singular contribution within the course of the entire economy. It seems there is
potential that the movement’s impact could be expanded with support of government policies and multistakeholder partnerships, broadening its social change benefits and sustainable development targets and vision.
9 SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth