This special issue of the Journal of Institutional Economics on the future of institutional and evolutionary economics consists of this introduction, four full essays, and two sizeable comments. Ménard and Shirley (2014) and Ménard (2014) discuss the future of the new institutional economics, and their two essays are followed by a reflection by Hodgson. Winter (2014) and Witt (2014) discuss the future of evolutionary economics, and their essays are followed by a comment by Stoelhorst. Here, we introduce these essays and comments by putting them in a broader historical perspective. In particular, we trace the common origins of modern institutional and evolutionary economics, particularly in the work of Veblen, as well as important additional influences such as Schumpeter and Simon. We highlight how the two approaches became disconnected, and signal the possibility of, and need for, re-establishing closer connections between them. Possible elements of a future overlapping research programme are outlined.

The trajectory of institutional economics changed in the 1970s when new institutional economics (NIE) began to take shape around some relative vague intuitions which eventually developed into powerful conceptual and analytical tools. The emergence of NIE is a success story by many measures: four Nobel laureates in less than 20 years, increasing penetration of mainstream journals, and significant impacts on major policy debates. This rapid acceptance is remarkable when we consider that it was divided from birth into distinct schools of thought. What will be the future of NIE? Will it be quietly absorbed by mainstream theory, or will it radically transform neoclassical economics into a new paradigm that includes institutions? To address these questions, we follow the sometimes-bumpy road to NIE's current successes and ponder the challenges that lie ahead.

Notwithstanding its major contributions, the ‘Williamsonian’ branch of New Institutional Economics suffers from black holes that recent developments have pinpointed. Rather than taking stock, this paper capitalizes on some of these developments to look ahead. Section 2 provides a reminder of the hard core of transaction cost economics (TCE) with an emphasis on problems that TCE has allowed to identify, particularly the richness of organizational arrangements, an issue that needs further investigation. Section 3 discusses how to better understand the embedment of organizational arrangements in their institutional environment. The concept of ‘meso-institutions’ is introduced as a mean to capture mechanisms providing the needed interface. Section 4 considers another neglected dimension that requires renewed attention: the interactions of organizational arrangements with technologies that partially define their setting. This paper proposes a roadmap to explore this issue, based on an ongoing research developed around the key concept of ‘criticality’. Section 5 concludes.

These reflections are prompted by the papers by Ménard (2014) and Ménard and Shirley (2014). Their essays centre on the path-breaking contributions to the ‘new institutional economics’ (NIE) by Ronald Coase, Douglass North and Oliver Williamson. In response, while recognising their substantial achievements, it is pointed out that these three thinkers had contrasting views on key points. Furthermore, Ménard's and Shirley's three ‘golden triangle’ NIE concepts – transaction costs, property rights and contracts – are themselves disputed. Once all this is acknowledged, differences of view appear within the NIE, raising interesting questions concerning its identity and boundaries, including its differences with the original institutionalism. There are sizeable overlaps between the two traditions. It is argued here that the NIE can learn from the original institutionalism, particularly when elaborating more dynamic analyses, and developing more nuanced, psychologically-grounded and empirically viable theories of human motivation.

This essay contemplates the possible futures of evolutionary economics in terms of two contrasting images. In the first, the primary research emphasis of the future will continue to be on the topics that have interested evolutionary economists in the past, such as technological change, business behavior, and the role of institutions. Research contributions in these focal areas and in some related areas are briefly characterized. In the second image, there is a breakout from this ‘beachhead’ and a broader conflict with the reigning paradigm, neoclassical economics. Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions provides a framework and stimulus for thinking about the latter case, and the 20th century paradigm conflict in physics provides a baseline for thinking about it. The core strengths of evolutionary economics in the paradigm conflict are noted, and the evolutionary role of intentionality is examined No definitive prediction about the future is offered.

Far from inspiring that paradigmatic shift in economics that was envisioned by its early proponents, ‘evolutionary’ economics today represents a patchwork of unconnected theories and topics. In other disciplines, evolutionary thinking has induced a paradigm shift, resulting from the adoption of the Darwinian paradigm extended by hypotheses about cultural evolution. Concerning economics, however, even a preliminary discourse on the potential of this paradigm for future theorizing remains controversial. The present paper therefore focuses on the methodological implications of the paradigm. It is shown that hitherto unnoticed common ground can be identified underlying the diversity of approaches to evolutionary economics. It rests in the modalities of causal explanations germane to the Darwinian paradigm. Understanding these modalities also makes it possible to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary research irrespective of the specific theories and topics concerned. The argument is illustrated for the exemplary case of institutional economics.

This essay comments on discussions of the future of evolutionary economics by Winter (2014) and Witt (2014). I agree with their assessment of evolutionary economics as a theoretically fragmented field that has had little success in effecting a paradigm shift in mainstream economics. However, I question if such a paradigm shift should be the primary goal of evolutionary economists. I argue that evolutionary economists could increase their impact if they would be willing and able to recast themselves as evolutionary social scientists. This was the vision for economics that Veblen held out more than a century ago. I lay out the theoretical building blocks for realizing this vision available today.