Thank you, Profesor Kulshrestha, for your words. As far as I could scope, the only paper that makes a direct reference to Veblen’s concept of cumulative causation as the basis for economic complexity is Rosser and Rosser (2016).

ROSSER, J. B.; ROSSER, M. V. Complexity and institutional evolution. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, p. 1–16, 9 nov. 2016.

Ping Chen, Peking University and Fudan University

I think its interesting the evolutionary perspective of subject thinking in Veblen interesting, and I believe that an interesting relation can be established with the Smithian subject of TMS and the Wealth of Nations on the assumption that the admission of the classical scientific method did not necessarily imply the assumption of the generalist individual and synthetic, but put the individual, adaptive and “evolutionary” (why not?) at the center of the ascending capitalist system.

I forgot to leave the bibliography for Arthur’s paper:

Arthur, W. B. (2007) ‘The structure of invention’, Research Policy, 36(2), pp. 274–287.

Thank you for your clarification, Prof. Mayhew. It is a lot clearer now what you were trying to mean by “it is this idle curiosity that leads to new ways of manipulating the natural world that is the driver of technological change in Veblen’s analysis”. The “idle curiosity” instinct is not quite the main driver of technological change, but could be interpreted as its primary source through its effects on purposeful activities. People would watch the unintended consequences of manipulating nature “under the impulse of idle curiosity” and would harness the observed phenomena into palpable methods, techniques, tools, instruments etc. with a biological or cultural goal in mind.

There are two important linkages I would like to note here. First is with Brian Arthur’s 2007 paper, “The structure of invention”, in which he attempts to elaborate a theory of the invention process. One of his main contributions is the conception of technology as a combination of component parts that is based upon a principle (a concept), which, in its turn, exploits an observed effect or phenomena (natural, physical, logical, behavioral and so on). The second is with the notion of complexity itself, or with the intrinsic unpredictability presented by systems that deal with positive feedbacks, which Arthur imputes to most complex systems. The idea of an instinct functioning the way “idle curiosity” does unavoidably evokes an open future subject only to continual “process-and-emergence”.

In the case of the science-technology interplay, it is also clearer now how Joel Mokyr posits it. I still have to do some thinking over it to establish the proper connections with the broader discussion of the paper, though. In any case, thank you for your recommendation, I am sure his works will contribute to my research.

I would appreciate a lot to continue this discussion with you after the conference via e-mail. Mine is jv.eco011@gmail.com. For now, I am open for any other comments you would like to submit here.

That said, I do want to offer a correction or clarification to your restatement of my restatement of Veblen. You write that “. . . idle curiosity is a pervasive instinct . . . that sets in motion the observed sequence of activities that manipulate the natural world WITH THE PURPOSE OF FULFILLING A SPECIFIC COLLECTION OF BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL GOALS.” (I have added the Caps.) Veblen was quite clear that the instinct of idle curiosity, which he did think a pervasive human trait, did not play out with any purposive intent. Indeed he contrasted the manipulation of nature that was done under the impulse of idle curiosity that manipulation done deliberately and with purpose. But, the consequences of playing around under the guidance of idle curiosity would be observed by the person(s) who were messing around and what people learned as a consequence could then be put to use with the purpose of serving a specific set of biological and cultural goals. It is the very fact that idle curiosity leads to actions other than those undertaken with purpose and prior understand that provides the novelty that drives the system.

I am not sure how this fits with Hodgson’s 2004 argument. Hodgson is much more concerned that I have ever been with trying to fit Veblen’s thought into a Darwinian biological model. My own reading of Veblen is that he invoked the name Darwin, as did many others of his time, to refer to a general set of ideas about evolution as a way of understanding change that was both path dependent and contingent. But, Veblen himself was much more heavily influenced, at least after the somewhat confused reasoning of THE THEORY OF THE LEISURE CLASS, by anthropological rather than biological/psychological thought.

As to the science-technology interplay, this is how I understand it. Veblen argued that humans, led by idle curiosity and with the advantage of great manual dexterity, had learned how to manipulate nature to do things like making sharp-edged tools, plant crops, breed animals, etc. As part of this process, though neither antecedent nor after-the-fact but rather simultaneously derived, accounts were created to “explain” what was happening. The shape of these accounts and the grounds for judging them adequate were determined by the general understanding of the world, which, in turn, was determined by the technologies and patterns of life of the time. Shepherds gave great explanatory power to an almighty conceived as a supernatural shepherd. Mechanic-craftsmen gave great explanatory power to a supernatural clock maker. What happened in the course of the 19th century was that through the centuries old process of learning by idle curiosity, the story tellers, the “myth makers” became the scientists and scientific knowledge and the actual technological processes merged. The scientist who could describe the steps to be taken to create a chemical compound or manipulate genetic material replaced the supernatural . This created the feedback loop by Joel Mokyr writes about.and increased the speed of technological change. This makes for a much more complex set of feedback loops in modern society.

This of course runs counter to the more widely conceived view that scientific discovery precedes and is causal of technological change.

It is tough going but I strongly recommend Veblen’s article on “The Place of Science.”

Let me know if you want to continue this discuss either in this format or via email.

–Anne

Thank you for your comment and supporting words, Prof. Mayhew. The issue of the human being’s “idle curiosity” is not one that occurred to me, even though I have had glimpses of it along my readings. Unfortunately, with the purpose of focusing on the economic change per se, I went on to Veblen’s works that treated explicitly with the topic, which left the “idle curiosity” concept undiscussed.

If I understood Prof. Mayhew’s intervention correctly (please, correct me if I didn’t), the human being’s “idle curiosity” is a pervasive instinct (as I recall Veblen’s own designation) that sets in motion the observed sequence of activities that manipulate the natural world with the purpose of fulfilling a specific collection of biological and cultural goals. As such, technological change is driven by “idle curiosity”.

A different element is the interpretation of the material expression of this change, which consists of a more epistemological character and does not relate directly to the “idle curiosity” instinct, relying, instead, on the “canons of validity” as determined by the current cultural beliefs. Those beliefs, in their turn, evolve in a constant feedback loop with the material structure of the economic institutions. Since 1850, this feedback mechanism becomes ever more consolidated as the primacy of the instinct and habit of the “prescriptive knowledge” over the reasoning exercise of the “propositional knowledge” begins to fade away.

If this is correct, maybe it can be connected with Hodgson’s (2004) argument that habits precede reason. I am still having some trouble trying to associate the epistemological nature of this discussion with the ontological character of the technological change and its effects on society, though. I can see clearly the potential of the “idle curiosity” concept, but not as clearly the “science-technology” interplay and how it can be inserted in the assessment of the contiguities between Veblen and the complexity approach.

I am looking forward to Prof. Mayhew’s response and clarification in this regard, to considerate more profoundly the suggested references, specially her paper, and to include them on my own research. Thank you, again.

If I understood Prof. Mayhew’s intervention correctly (please, correct me if I didn’t), the human being’s “idle curiosity” is a pervasive instinct (as I recall Veblen’s own designation) that sets in motion the observed sequence of activities that manipulate the natural world with the purpose of fulfilling a specific collection of biological and cultural goals. As such, technological change is driven by “idle curiosity”.

A different element is the interpretation of the material expression of this change, which consists of a more epistemological character and does not relate directly to the “idle curiosity” instinct, relying, instead, on the “canons of validity” as determined by the current cultural beliefs. Those beliefs, in their turn, evolve in a constant feedback loop with the material structure of the economic institutions. Since 1850, this feedback mechanism becomes ever more consolidated as the primacy of the instinct and habit of the “prescriptive knowledge” over the reasoning exercise of the “propositional knowledge” begins to fade away.

If this is correct, maybe it can be connected with Hodgson’s (2004) argument that habits precede reason. I am still having some trouble trying to associate the epistemological nature of this discussion with the ontological character of the technological change and its effects on society, though. I can see clearly the potential of the “idle curiosity” concept, but not as clearly the “science-technology” interplay and how it can be inserted in the assessment of the contiguities between Veblen and the complexity approach.

I am looking forward to Prof. Mayhew’s response and clarification in this regard, to considerate more profoundly the suggested references, specially her paper, and to include them on my own research. Thank you, again.

I would like to thank Prof. Shiozawa for his words. As a new researcher, it is very encouraging to receive such support from a more experienced fellow economist.

I still didn’t have the opportunity to read Delorme’s paper, but to be compared to a keynote author is a great honor. From my point of view as the author, I can say that I am not quite satisfied with the paper. Undoubtedly, nothing more common for a conference paper, due to the preliminary character of the works usually presented on those events. My point is that I was afraid I didn’t make clear my point about the possible convergence zones between the complexity approach and Veblen’s work, even as an introductory attempt. I had some reluctance not only with the theme itself but with the writing methodology and the arrangement of the ideas. I am already working on improving those aspects, but Prof. Shiozawa’s support was important to strengthen my conviction that I am, at least, on the right track.