Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:27:37.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poverty of stimulus and absence of cause: some questions for Felin and Foss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2011

GEOFFREY M. HODGSON  and
THORBJØRN KNUDSEN
GEOFFREY M. HODGSON*
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire Business School, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB, UK
THORBJØRN KNUDSEN
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

We examine an aspect of the argument of Teppo Felin and Nicolai Foss (‘The Endogenous Origins of Experience, Routines, and Organizational Capabilities: The Poverty of Stimulus’; 2011) where they reject the claim of Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen (‘Darwinism, Causality and the Social Sciences’; 2004) that habits depend crucially on stimuli from the social environment. We argue that while rightly stressing human agency they also create a false dichotomy between agential and environmental factors in the explanation. Felin and Foss create further confusion by hinting – without adequate clarification – at an untenable notion of human agency as an uncaused cause. We raise several questions of clarification for these authors.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Business Routines , June 2011 , pp. 295 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bunge, M. A. (1959), Causality: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Felin, T. and Foss, N. (2011), ‘The Endogenous Origins of Experience, Routines, and Organizational Capabilities: The Poverty of Stimulus’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 7 (2): doi:10.1017/S1744137410000214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H. (1999), Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gittins, J. C. (1989), Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2004), ‘Darwinism, Causality and the Social Sciences’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 11 (2): 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2007), ‘Meanings of Methodological Individualism’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 14 (2): 211–226.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. and Knudsen, T. (2004), ‘The Firm as an Interactor: Firms as Vehicles for Habits and Routines’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14 (3): 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. and Knudsen, T. (2010), Darwin's Conjecture: The Search for General Principles of Social and Economic Evolution, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning’, Organization Science, 2 (1): 71–87.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1958), Organizations, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar