2. 88 Management Research
in-house arrangements that influence the decision-making when one firm copies the characteristics of other firms (Camp-
process (Reve, 1990). bell, 1965; 1974); (2) selective propagation of time-related
An environment-based approach to the study of organiza- variations, through which the firm duplicates and propagates
tions has become increasingly important since the late 195Os, variations that arise spontaneously in response to institutional
when the concept of the environment was introduced through pressures, creative flair, or errors that eventually lead to better
ideas related to systems theory. Since then, the environment practices (Campbell, 1977b; 1981); and (3) rational selection,
hás certainly played an influential role, with interest focused through which the agents constituting the firm perceive po-
on the paths where this influence functions (Hatch, 1997). tentially better variations through analyzing its activities and
Under the aegis of modern theories dealing with the relation- the environment (Campbell, 1977a).
ship between the organization and its environment, particu- In the field of organizational theory, population ecology
larly outstanding approaches are the population ecology of expressed in the studies of Hannan and Freeman (1977;
organizations and evolutionary economics (Baum & Singh, 1989), among others, assumes that organizations flourish
1994; Levinthal, 1994; Montgomery, 1995). Based on the and fade on the basis of their ability to adapt to the selection
logic of natural selection through biological evolution, these processes in the environments where they operate. Organiza-
evolutionary approaches assume that the relationship between tions are affected by their environments, shaped by the models
the firm and its environment explains the differentiated sur- through which their administrators formulate strategies,
vival of firms, offering promising contributions in the field of make decisions, and implement them. In the field of econom-
strategic management, particularly with regard to dynamic ics, evolutionary economics expressed in the work of Nelson
environments. and Winter (1982), among others, based on the concepts
The evolutionary approaches of the firm present a two- of Schumpeter (1934), apply the evolutionary model based
tiered analysis—the selection system of the environment and on biological selection in a pioneering manner in order to
the adaptation process of the firm. Environmental selection understand changes in the economic environment. The focus
analysis focuses on the selection logics of the competitive is largely on innovative technological dynamics, industrial
environment that determine the survival of the firms. Firm development, and market structures, as well as growth and
adaptation analysis, on the other hand, concentrates on (1) the business cycles (Witt, 1992).
generation of variations in organizational activities designed However, these evolutionary theories do not satisfactorily
to fine-tune its alignment with the selection system of the indicate the links between the micro (firm) and the macro
environment, and (2) in-house selection and propagation of (environment) levels of the analysis. Population ecology directs
these variations. its interest toward detailed examinations of the selection logics
The variation and selective retention (VSR) model proposed and processes of the competitive environment, neglecting the
by Campbell (1965) consolidates the application of the logic issue of variations and their implications for strategy. Mean-
guiding biological selection to firms that appears in the semi- while, although evolutionary economics concentrates on varia-
nal works by Alchian (1950) and Hawley (1966). The works tions in the environment, examining their consequences on
by these authors have definitively influenced the field of study strategic behavior, it reduces the logic and the environmental
for organizational evolution through their influence on early selection process to technological innovations.
researchers and students from the 1960s through the 1980s, In order to identify complementarities between approaches
such as Bill McKelvey, Sidney Winter, Howard Aldrich, Mike of population ecology of organizations and evolutionary eco-
Hannan, John Freeman, Karl Weick, Jerry Salancik, and Joel nomics that may contribute to the synthesis on organizational
Baum (Baum & McKelvey, 1999). evolutionary dynamics, this paper explores paths for dealing
The VSR model presents three main components—vari- with studies and research into the dynamics of the competi-
ations, selection, and retention. For Campbell (1965), firms tive environment and its implications for a research model in
strive to enhance their ability to survive and their effectiveness the strategic management area. It is important to stress the
and efficiency in attaining their goals through adapting their stimulus in this field of outstanding researchers in the área,
activities to environmental demands. Attempts at changing such as Murmann, Aldrich, Levinthal, and Winter (2003).
established activities constitute variations in ways of doing At the conceptual level, we use an epistemological cross
things. Variations that lead to a better-adjusted alignment section, highlighting a transversal view of the evolutionary
between the firm and its environment are selected for reten- approaches of population ecology and evolutionary economics.
tion, duplicated, and propagated in-house throughout the At the methodological level, we apply the metatriangulation
firm. For the author, the outcome of this process is evolution, technique in order to highlight points of similarity and diver-
in the sense of a better alignment between the organization gence between these two theoretical approaches, attempting
and the selection system of the environment. There are three to overlap and entwine construals into a new understanding
types of sources for these variations: (1) diffusion or imitation, (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Grimes &Rood, 1995;Lewis&Grimes,
3. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 89
1999)- We implemented the metatriangulation in four stages. Hannan and Freeman (1977) view an organizational popula-
In the first stage, we analyzed individually and in detail tion as being similar to the concept of the species in biology: a
the vision of each approach to the relationship between the cluster of firms with the same organizational form or structure.
firm and its environment. In the second stage, we developed These authors defined the organizational form analogously
metaconjectures—that is, interpretative propositions based to the DNA protein chains that contain the entire set of in-
on two theoretical approaches to relationships between the structions for the development of certain biotic structures. In
firm and its environment. In the third stage, we aimed at other words, for the authors, the organizational form is the
developing a multiparadigmatic standpoint, striving to ex- genotype of the firm—that is, the set of instructions for the
pand conventional theoretical definitions in order to reach an development of a certain type of firm and for the conduction
understanding that could accommodate both approaches. In of collective actions by its components. In operational terms,
the fourth and final stage, we completed the metatriangula- it may be defined through four key dimensions, the phenotype
tion with a criticism of the resulting theory and the process of the firm—organizational objectives, types of authority,
of its construction. technologies, and markets (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Rao &
The main lesson from this theory-building exercise was that Singh, 1999). The organizational form assigns a set of similar
the ecology and evolutionary economics models are similar and risks and advantages to the population of firms for survival,
complementary, with no antagonistic aspects between them, thus generating a characteristic of unity. On the other hand,
but rather are distinct analytical standpoints with intrinsic populations interrelate among themselves in a competitive
flaws. The resulting model presents a two-tiered analysis: or symbiotic manner, forming organizational communities
the selection system of the environment and the adaptation (Brittain & Wholey, 1988).
processes of the firms. Competitive dynamics ground the se- Ecology strives to explain the diversity found in the levels
lection system of the environment, with the selection factors of the population and the community. To do só, it starts out
gathering the complementary factors proposed by ecology from the principle established by Hawley (1966) that there is
and evolutionary economics: technological innovation, demo- an isomorphism between the diversity of organizational forms
graphíc processes (related to age and size), environmental dy- and the diversity of environments. It adopts an evolutionary
namism, population density and other institutional processes, model, assuming that in each distinguishable environment
and interpopulation dynamics. As ecology does not deal with only populations adapted to its specific demands can survive.
the adaptation process of the firms (generation, selection, and Ecology provides two key contributions to the Hawley model.
propagation of variations in the organizational activities), the First, it supplements the model by explicitly highlight-
theoretical foundation of evolutionary economics supports ing competition as a mechanism generating isomorphism
this dimension of the model, allowing the focus to be shifted (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). As the resources available to
from ecological research projects examining selection logic firms in the environment are finite and the growth capacity
to environmental variations and their strategic implications. of populations is unlimited, competition becomes inevitable,
The model offers three main contributions for future research constituting the environmental selection mechanism. The
into strategic management. First, it allows the development of second is questioning the assumptions presented by Hawley
descriptive and normative studies of the relationship among on the adaptation capacity of firms in uncertain and hetero-
the environmental selection factors and the different types geneous environments. The view is that the rigidity of the
of enterprise strategies. Second, the proposed conceptual organizational structure required to comply with demands for
framework may be beneficial for studies of interorganizational reliability and justifiability in performance would give rise to
learning. Third, the model has the advantage of responding inertial pressures against changes. Consequently, this would
to the criticism of strategy theories in terms of their inability curtail the ability of firms to adjust and align with the environ-
to generalize. ment through variations in their core characteristics (Hannan
& Freeman, 1984: 154—155). From this standpoint, attempts
POPULATION ECOLOGY at change, even when intended to ensure the survival of the
firm, will lead to the obsolescence of the routines, skills, com-
The starting point for population ecology is the seminal text by petences, and relationships with environmental players that the
Hannan and Freeman (1977) titled "The Population Ecology firm developed in the course of its operations. Consequently,
of Organizations." Inspired by the question "Why are there this would bring solidly established firms at more advanced
só many kinds of organizations?" population ecology tries to stages of bureaucratization down to a level similar to that of
explain how political, economic, and social conditions affect newcomers, with a greater risk of collapse over the short term.
the relative abundance and diversity of types of organization, With regard to organizational innovation, the ecology thesis
trying to justify the mutating composition of organizations is that the probability of the occurrence of variations would
over time (Baum, 1996). decrease with the age and size of the firms.
4. 90 Management Research
However, Hannan and Freeman (1984: 161) assume that characteristics of the firms, such as age and size, on the failure
firms managing to survive changes in the core characteristics and founding rates in an organizational population.
over the short term would face declining risks of failure over the With regard to the influence of age, the prevailing view is
course of time, as they would reestablish their organizational that younger organizations are more likely to present higher
legitimacy. These authors thus indicate that organizations can failure rates than older organizations, suffering a liability of
surmount the short-term negative effects through managing newness, due to the need to learn roles and create organiza-
the process of change. On the other hand, Amburgey, Kelly, tional routines (Freeman & Hannan, 1983). For Hannan and
and Barnett (1993) suggest that organizational changes are Freeman (1984), selective pressures in stable environments
linked to the progress of the firm. By making changes, the favor organizations able to demonstrate that they are reliable
organization will make change itself into a routine. Moreover, and have justification, demanding high reproductive capaci-
these authors foresee that the effect of past changes on new ties. As selection processes favor replicable structures, older
changes would be dynamic. The repetition of specific changes organizations are less likely to fail than start-ups. Thus, failure
would occur with great probability during the period subse- rates rise initially as start-up funding runs out for new firms,
quent to their occurrence, declining over time. Baum (1996) tending to drop as they build up reliability and justification
presents a broad-ranging review of ecological literature on (Fischman & Levinthal, 1991)- This phenomenon is known
organizational change and failure, noting that current research as liability of adolescence. As alignment with the environment
projects do not seem to uphold the hypothesis that the prob- slips out of kilter due to outside variations, the organizational
ability of changes drops with the age and the size of the firms. failure rate starts to rise again. This phenomenon is known as
Ecological theory remains muddled with regard to structural liability of obsolescence and senescence (Ingram, 1993). Figure l
inertia. Firms change in response to environmental stimuli, summarizes the effects of age in stable environments.
usually without adverse effects. With regard to size, the view is that growth contributes
However, due to the idea of structural inertia, the evolu- to inertia in organizations. As selective pressures and stable
tionary model for ecology assigns prevalence to environmental environments favor structurally inert organizations due to their
selection in terms of the adaptation of the firm (development reliability, larger organizations are considered as being less vul-
of variations and their retention and propagation throughout nerable to the risks of failure (Hannan & Freeman, 1984).
the firm). "Extending the received wisdom about adaptation
[Hawley's adaptationist premises] requires specification of Ecological Processes
the underlying dynamic processes and attention to {envi-
ronmental} selection. In the organizational world, selection This second theme-specific group of environmental factors
occurs through the emergence and demise of organizational related to selective elimination gathers those linked to the
forms, which depend on the fates of individual organizations" influence of environmental dynamism and intra- and inter-
(Hannan, Pólos, & Carroll, 2007: 18). Interest focuses on the population dynamics on the founding and failure rates of the
environmental logics of selection elimination linked to com- populations.
petition and the dynamism of the environment. Along these In stable environments, firms seek an organizational form
lines, there are two basic ecological considerations. The first, that is optimized for responding to environmental demands,
linked to competitive dynamics, is related to the available becoming specialists in this field. In dynamic environments,
capacity in the environment to underpin the expansion of vari- outside variations tend to reduce the alignment capacity of
ous organizational forms. The second, linked to environmental the organizational form with the environment, stepping up
dynamism, focuses on the growth rate (or shrinkage) of popu- the risk of failure as age and size increase. In order to operate
lations when environmental characteristics change. Conse- in this type of environment, firms deploy two possible strate-
quently, theory and research in this field focus on the founding gies. The first strategy for dynamic environments, which is
and failure rates of organizational populations as analysis units. generalist strategy, consists of seeking an organizational form
The environmental factors related to selective elimination that is not optimally adapted to any special environmental
associated with organizational establishment and failure may configuration but is optimum in terms of the total set of pos-
be grouped into three theme-specific blocks—demographic sible configurations. Thus, organizations become generalists
processes, ecological processes, and environmental processes. (Freeman & Hannan, 1983). This generalist approach requires
These factors are presented below. a stockpile of organizational headroom—that is, capacities
held in reserve that are not committed to action (for example,
Demographic Processes personnel qualification levels) although available for dealing
with environment variations, thus ensuring flexibility (Han-
This first theme-specific block gathers the environmental fac- nan & Freeman, 1977). The second strategy for dynamic
tors related to selective elimination linked to the effects of the environments, which is the specialist strategy, consists of
5. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 91
optimizing the organizational form in order to respond to a and failure rates in organizational populations. Factors linked
narrow range of environmental configurations. This strategy to the institutional environment are tied to institutional con-
is preferred for environments where variations are frequent formity. Political turbulence affects social alignments through
(Hannan & Freeman, 1977). These environments are called breaking away from established relationships and releasing
refined. Consequently, generalist organizations will seem inef- funds for new firms (Carroll, 1983). For example, government
ficient compared to their specialist counterparts, due to idle regulations may stimulate demand, regulate competition, and
capacity that is frequently considered as wasted. offer subsidies (Barnett & Carroll, 1993). Connections with
Still, from the standpoint of the ecological process, many community and public institutions enhance legitimacy, pos-
research projects have focused on intrapopulation dynamics. sibly providing funds and thus reducing organizational failures
Earlier founding and failure patterns for a population may (Baum & Oliver, 199D-
influence the founding rate (Delacroix & Carroll, 1983). Earlier
foundings indicate a fertile niche for potential entrepreneurs. The institutional environment constitutes the broadest social
However, as more firms are founded, the competition for re- context for the occurrence of ecological processes: the institu-
sources also becomes keener, discouraging newcomers. Along tional environment may prescribe the environmental selection
the same lines, initial increases in population density lead to criteria to judge whether an organization or entire population
must survive or not. (Baum, 1996: 162)
the greater cognitive legitimacy of a population, triggering
an upsurge in the start-ups rate and a drop in the failures rate
On the other hand, technological innovation hás the potential
(Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Haveman, 1994). On the other
to influence organizational populations deeply, as it may shatter
hand, populations develop relationships with other popula-
markets and alter the relative importance of an assortment of
tions engaged in activities linked to their own, affecting each
resources, challenging organizational learning capacities and
other through two-way influences (Baum & Oliver, 1991; altering the nature of the competition (Cohen & Levinthal,
Rao & Singh, 1999)- Interpopulation relations are based on
1990). Technological cycles into which new and radically
varied leveis of competition and symbiosis (Brittain & Wholey, different technologies are introduced, excluding outdated
1988).
technologies, allow the establishment of new orders of mag-
nitude and performance that can contribute to the establish-
Environmental Processes ment of new enterprises and turn them into technologically
superior contenders (Dosi, 1984; Tushman & Anderson, 1986;
The third theme-specific block aligns the environmental fac- Van de Ven & Garud, 1994).
tors related to selective elimination associated with the insti- This focus on technological changes and their impact
tutional and technological levels that influence the founding on environmental dynamics, more specifically on economic
6. 92 Management Research
dynamics, characterizes the evolutionary approach to econom- Increased variety is prompted by the introduction of new
ics, presented below. sectors, as well as enhanced productivity in existing sectors.
The creation process may be exemplified when changes occur
in technological paradigms, with new companies being set up
EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS creating new production techniques, new products, and new
forms of production organization (Dosi, 1984). The selection
The starting line for the evolutionary approach to economics
and retention process is the result of the competition process,
is the book by Nelson and Winter (1982), An Evolutionary
with profit as the expression of the selection and the source of
Theory of Economic Change, rated as a classic in this field, which
constant adaptations by the firms (Nelson & Winter, 1982).
establishes the general lines of an evolutionary economic
The competition triggers changes in the capacities of the
theory. The core issue is to understand the behavior of the firm,
competitors through selection (the best-adapted organization
its capacities, and its limits for adapting in an environment
survives) or adaptation (less-adapted organizations change).
of changes (Nelson & Winter, 2002). From this standpoint,
The new capacities that improve the adjustment of firms to
evolutionary economics appears as a theoretical field that is
the environmental selective system pressures are this way
eminently contrary to the assumptions adopted by the or-
kept and propagated. The intensity of selection pressures
thodox neoclassical approach, particularly with regard to the
on the market plays a crucial role in determining the speed
hypothesis of the maximizing rationality of the agents and
of response of firms in terms of enhancing their competitive
optimizing behavior, which leads to a trend toward an even
capacities.
balance in the economic system. An evolutionary approach in
economics constitutes a field for investigation that is essentially
interdisciplinary. According to Saviotti and Metcalfe (1991), The Firm, Routines, and Selection Environments
the main theoretical lines underpinning an evolutionary ap-
According to Dosi and Teece (1993), the firm is based on
proach are the theory of innovation developed by Schumpeter,
specific skills and competences for coordinating activities
the theory of the evolution of species in biology, the theory
and learning about new activities in complex environments
of systems and thermodynamics in physics, and the theory of
undergoing constant changes. These competences underpin
organizations in management.
the competitive capacity of the firm, consisting of an articu-
Although rejecting the label of evolutionary, Schumpeter is
lated set of abilities, complementary assets, and organizational
considered as the seminal author by evolutionary authors. In
routines.
fact, evolutionary authors use evolutionary analysis to consider
The routines constitute the basis for reproducing skills and
economic dynamics as proposed by Schumpeter (Nelson &
competences under the aegis of the firm. Along these lines, the
Winter, 1982: 39). From a Schumpeterian view, the process
concept of routine is similar to that of the gene in biology—
of innovation is the basis of competition in a capitalist system,
that is, a persistent (hereditary) characteristic of the firm that
with the sources of innovation being organized research and
determines its future behavior, as is the case with the replica-
corporate development drives. Thus, innovation is an adaptive
tion of new units. The routines correspond to the genotype of
response to a rapidly changing environment with constant
the firm, constituting its organizational form, operationally
imbalance.
defined by the set of dominant technical and administrative
The inspiration in biology is based on the adoption of the
competences (McKelvey), or by its core competence (Dosi &
concepts of variation, selection, adaptation, and heredity, as
Teece, 1993). The notion of routine reflects the influence of the
proposed by Campbell (1969).
theory of organizations on the evolutionary approach, based
on the firm behavioral theory of Cyert and March (1992) and
Sociobiological literature, or that part of it which applies
evolutionary theory to human social behavior, links analysis of Simon (1955). Based on the principle of bounded rationality,
biological selection mechanisms to a long-standing tradition the concept of routine reflects an analytical standpoint focused
of study of sociocultural evolution. Campbell (1969) provided on the process of choice rather than on a set of choices through
an excellent survey of that broad field and argued for the which the maximum profits is sought, as proposed in the
merits of a variation and cultural selection—retention theory
neoclassic theory. The optimum point is substituted by the
of sociocultural evolution. Our own work may be viewed as a
specialized branch of such a theory, as may the work of econo- satisfactory, meaning that firms seek profit, but not necessarily
mists and lawyers exploring the evolution of the common law maximum profit (Simon, 1955).
and the efforts of organization theorists who have taken the As presented by Dosi and Egidi (1991), the solution of
evolutionary tack. (Nelson & Winter, 1982: 43) problems through routines is characteristic of environments
suffering from procedural uncertainty, where uncertainty
Variation is defined by the number of players, activities, and emerges due to the complexity of the decision-making process.
objects required in the composition of an economic system. In other words, "routinized" decision processes diminish the
7. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 93
uncertainty of calculating the information required to resolve different, opening up a broad range of opportunities in terms
the problem. This concept of procedural uncertainty perme- of science and technology (Malerba, 2002).
ates formal models of evolutionary economics in the sense that According to the definition proposed by Malerba and
the players in the organizations lack the capacity to "take a Orsenigo (1993), the technological environment is defined
broader view" of the environmental context and decide on the on the basis of the conditions of opportunity, appropriability,
best alternative to be adapted by the organization, or even to and degrees of cumulativeness of technological knowledge,
understand the causal structure of organizational experiences in addition to the nature of the related knowledge base. Op-
or deduce the best strategy for the players (Nelson & Winter, portunity reflects the ease of innovation for any amount of
1982). money and resources invested in research.1 Appropriability
According to Nelson and Winter (1982: 14), routines re- summarizes the possibilities of protecting innovations from
flect the daily life of the company, meaning they are regular imitations and generating profits through activities based on
and predictive in terms of corporate behavior, ranging from innovation: poor appropriability conditions denote economic
technical decisions on production through to investment environment characterized by the ample existence of externali-
decisions. Routines may be classified into three categories: ties. Cumulativeness is related to the path-dependent nature
operating routines—that is, routine activities of the firm, given of the innovative process, where today's innovations and in-
its inventory of capital, equipment, plants, and other pro- novative activities form the foundations and building blocks
duction factors; investment routines—that is, activities for the for constructing the innovations of tomorrow; that is, today's
establishment of the inventory of capital (production factors innovative firms are more likely to innovate in the future than
that are fixed over the short term); and change routines—that is, their noninnovative counterparts.2 Finally, the knowledge base
activities for changing operating characteristics (search routines), is defined along two dimensions—tacitness and complexity.
conducted by marketing departments, research and develop- The tacitness level drops as knowledge becomes more codified,
ment (R&D) laboratories, and so forth. The search routines with easier access. The complexity level is defined on the inter-
spur the mutation process of the firm, similar to the process connection levels among the various types of knowledge and
in biology where mutations occur within a genetic base. From disciplines (scientific and technological), as well as the actual
this standpoint, the process of evolution is partly deterministic variety of skills and competences related to the production
and partly stochastic. On one hand, the operating routines process, demand characteristics, access of suppliers, materials,
define the quantity of inputs used and goods produced. To- outside R&D activities, and só forth.
gether with the market supply and demand conditions, these The compositions of these dimensions of the technological
quantities define the prices of inputs, feedstock, and goods, regime vary among sectors, and it is these compositions that
and consequently the profits of the firm. On the other hand, define a menu of options and trade-offs in terms of techno-
the profits resulting from the market selection process imply logical Strategies and basic types of organization for firms
constant reviews of production and investment decisions made (Figure 2). The more tacit and complex the knowledge, the
by firms, including the establishment of new search routines greater the need for total integration through the development
(Nelson & Winter, 1982). of internal codes and Communications channels, in addition
It is worth noting that routines change in response to the to the integration of scattered fragments of knowledge, with
environmental changes. They also undergo a selection process; weaker abilities or possibilities of transferring it to other firms,
that is, firms with certain routines perform certain functions or that the latter may assimilate and reproduce such knowl-
better than others and consequently tend to increase their edge. On the other hand, the less complex the knowledge base
relative importance in the firm population. This way the VSR and the higher the levei of technological pervasiveness, the
model (Campbell, 1965) also applies to the level of the firm greater the opportunity for diversification.
(Levinthal, 2007). Dosi and Teece (1993) show that the dimensions of the
technological regime are not defined only outside the firm.
Technological and Organizational Strategies Although closely related to the industry, technological op-
portunities are also influenced and nurtured by the innova-
The concept of routine is crucial for defining the Strategies of tions developed by firms through their research activities.
the firm, as the strategy is construed as the policies of the firm Along these lines, Dosi and Teece propose a triple-pronged
or the highest rules for guiding decision making (Nelson & organizational strategy typology: in-house learning processes
Winter, 1982). Decisions are not made in an arbitrary manner, of the firm, forces that demarcate and focus the learning pro-
regardless of the technical, economic, and market contexts cesses (path dependence, complementary assets, technological
within which the firm operates. In other words, from the evolu- opportunities, transaction costs), and the selection environ-
tionary economics standpoint, the technological environment ment. In fast-learning situations, with ample technological
and the conditions in which the agents function may be very opportunities and steady progress, firms specializing in a
94
8. single product expand rapidly. On the other hand, in a slow Finally, it is worth stressing that, from the standpoint of
learning context with a steady course (high path dependence) evolutionary economics, the innovation process is essentially
and specialized assets, specialized firms may be expected to interactive. Along these lines, corporate behavior may be
evolve to some level of horizontal integration and significant understood only through the links between the skills and
vertical integration. competences of the firm and the development of the industry,
In fast-learning situations with a lengthy evolutionary guided by technologies, demands, and institutions (Malerba
track record due to the presence of generic technologies and & Orsenigo, 1993). Firms do not innovate on a stand-alone
a strongly selective environment, diversified firms are found. basis, as innovation is grounded on a collective process where
When the path dependence is low, the learning curve is flattish firms interact with others in addition to other institutions
and the selection environment is weak, conglomerates or other such as universities, government departments, and research
highly diversified companies are noted, with few intracorporate centers. These links among many different players constitute
transactions. In fast-learning contexts, with technologies on what is called the innovation system, which presents three leveis
collision paths and highly selective environments, firms are of analysis—national (Lundvall, 1992), regional, and sectoral
found in networks, enmeshed in a dense tangle of intercor- (Malerba, 2002). Interaction among players is a complex
porate relationships through holdings, joint ventures, and process that largely defines the dynamics of the innovation
strategic alliances. If the learning curve is flatter, there will be system (Saviotti, 1997).
a possibility of firms diversifying in-house, with no need for
interfirm agreements. In a situation with converging technol- A SUMMARIZED PROPOSAL FOR STUDYING
ogy paths, the establishment of hollow corporations is more THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM
likely through establishing contracts for quickly assembling AND ITS ENVIRONMENT
an assortment of capacities that address the development and
sale of a product. Unless their organizational routines are This section presents a comparison of the evolutionary models
Consolidated, these firms will probably not survive in highly for population ecology and evolutionary economics through
selective environments. critical reflection on each model, summarizing their similari-
9. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 95
ties and underscoring differences and constraints. It also pres- the selection factors (age and size, environmental dynamism,
ents a sketch of a model that gathers the complementarities population density, interpopulation dynamics, and institu-
of these approaches through a two-tier analysis—the selective tional and technological processes).
system of the environment and the adaptation process of the Although its basic intention is to understand the constantly
firm (generation, retention, and propagation of variations). shifting composition of organizations ("Why are there so
The purpose of this model is to underpin the study and un- many types of organizations?"), ecology ranks environmental
derstanding of the evolutionary dynamics of organizations and selection high, generally neglecting the adaptation process
their implications for a strategic management research model, (development of organizational variations and their reten-
particularly from the standpoint of the relationship between tion and propagation throughout the firm) due to the idea
the organization and its environment. of structural inertia. Paradoxically, the focus of ecological
research projects examining structural inertia has focused on
Similarities, Differences, and Limitations of the influence of demographic process (related to age and size)
Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics on organizational changes in firm populations. The problem
is that there is no theoretical and methodological support for
Grounded on the logic of natural selection in biology applied dealing with organizational adaptation in ecology. The catego-
to organizations, the evolutionary models for ecology and rization of the changes to be studied has been developed in a
evolutionary economics are striving to understand the variety fairly broad-ranging manner, such as the study by Amburgey
of organizational forms and their shifting composition over et ai. (1993), for example, which examined variations in the
time. For both, competitive dynamics constitutes the core content and layout of newspapers, or the study by Haveman
of the environmental selection process. This is based on the (1992), which analyzed variations in home mortgages. The
assumption that the environment in which firms operate is internai varieties of the categories established for analysis have
changing constantly, always unbalanced, só that organizations been considered as equivalent, thus blunting the accuracy and
must adapt rapidly to their environmental context in order realism of the research projects. In order to understand the
to survive in these competitive processes. Similar to biology, adaptation process better, it seems that corporate competences
both theoretical approaches define the organizational form as and routines require more direct measurements.
the genotype of the firm. For ecology, this would correspond In turn, for evolutionary economics, competitive dynamics
to the DNA proteins structure—that is, the set of instruc- are based on technological innovation and the institutional
tions for structuring a specific type of firm and the conduct of aspects of the innovative process. It studies the competitive
the collective actions of its components (Hannan & Freeman, environment as much as the corporate adaptation process to its
1984). Evolutionary economics defines the routines of the firm demands. Along these lines, the analysis units include the firm
like its genes. Thus, the organizational form is shaped by the as well as the technological environment and the institutional
set of dominant technícal and administrative competences aspects of the innovative process, expressed in the national,
(McKelvey, 1982) or by its core competence (Dosi & Teece, regional, and sectoral innovation system constructs. This con-
1993). sequently highlights one of the constraints of the evolutionary
Differences between evolutionary economics and ecology approach to economics. It stresses the logics of environmental
are related mainly to the type of approach of the selection selection based on technological innovation to the detriment of
environment, more specifically the factors shaping the com- the others. An example is the social and political process that
petitive dynamics and their implications on feasible strategies. permeates market evolution (Fligstein, 1996). Evolutionary
Differences in analytical standpoints also give rise to differing economics neglects the institutional processes building up
analysis units. shared rules on the competitive and cooperative relationships
In ecology, competitive dynamics is linked to the dispute among firms that are not tied to technological innovation and
for finite resources (such as raw materials, qualified labor, their effects on environmental selection.
funding, and others) at the population level. The popula- On the other hand, when evolutionary economics deals
tions are gathered into communities and present symbiotic with the adaptation processes of the firms based on search and
or competitive relationships among themselves. Faced by the selection routines, it offers massive contributions in the field
unlimited growth capacity of the populations, competition, of strategic management, bridging one of the constraints of
and the environmental dynamism, each market selects for sur- ecology. This approach enables firms to define organizational
vival the populations that are best adapted to their demands, and technological strategies based on the conditions shaping
thus establishing an isomorphism between the diversity of the the technological regime (Malerba & Orsenigo, 1993) and their
populations (or the organizational forms) and the diversity of in-house conditions, such as the ownership of complementary
the environments. The analysis unit adopted is the growth (or assets and the evolutionary path followed by the firms (Dosi
shrinkage) rate of the organizational populations in terms of & Teece, 1993).
10. 96 Management Research
It is worth highlighting that research projects conducted the environment is centered on competitive dynamics, with
under the aegis of evolutionary economics, at the firm levei, the selection factors gathering the complementary factors
have disregarded two points. The first refers to the weak proposed by evolutionary economics and ecology: techno-
commitment of the field to the study of the selection process logical innovation, demographic processes (related to age
for the variations developed by firms (Levinthal, 2007: 293). and size), environmental dynamism, population density and
The second corresponds to the limited attention paid to the other institutional processes, and interpopulation dynamics.
role of coordinating and settling disputes that take place on As ecology does not examine the adaptation processes of the
organizational routines and competences (Coriat, 2000: 216). firm (generation, selection, and propagation of variations), the
However, it is important to stress that these disregarded as- proposed model adopts the theoretical foundation of evolution-
pects are noted in the research projects conducted, rather than ary economics for this aspect (March & Simon, 1993; Nelson
from the evolutionary model standpoint, which stipulates the & Winter, 1982). In other words, the model views firms as
adaptation process and the grounds required for analysis and repositories of organizational capacities and routines that strive
study at this levei. for alignment with the demands of the selection environment
in order to attain their objectives in an effective and efficacious
Complementarity Between the Population Ecology and manner, stepping up their chances of survival. To do so, firms
Evolutionary Economics Models: A Proposed Synthesis attempt to introduce variations in their routines, skills, and
competences and select the ones that enhance this alignment
As noted, the ecology and evolutionary economics models are for retention and dissemination throughout themselves.
similar and complementary. They have no antagonistic aspects According to evolutionary economics and ecology, the
between them, but rather distinct analytical standpoints with model takes on the organizational form as the genotype of the
intrinsic flaws. We outline a model below that gathers the firm, viewed as the production and management technology
complementarities of these two approaches based on a two- of the organization. The model embodies the ecological idea
tiered analysis—the selective system in the environment and that firms with the same organizational form are grouped into
the adaptation process of the firm (generation, retention, and populations, while these populations gather into communities,
propagation of variations). developing symbiotic or competitive relationships. The selec-
Initially, the analysis level of the firm is considered. Evo- tion system of the environment works at all three levels—firm,
lutionary economics addresses the issue of organizational ad- population, and community. Moreover, these levels interact,
aptation based on the firm behavioral theory (Cyert & March, establishing a multitiered environmental selection system.
1992; March & Simon, 1993) and the Schumpeterian theory of This standpoint extends beyond the idea of multilevel analysis
competition, grounded on the process of innovation. In turn, as such. As explained by Howard Aldrich:
ecology does not deal with the process of generating, selecting,
and propagating variations in organizational activities, instead multilevel selection means that we take seriously the pos-
concentrating on the environmental selection system. Thus, sibility that what benefits, or alternatively what decreases,
from the standpoint of adaptation by the firm, evolutionary the fitness of a unit within a larger unit actually raises the
fitness of the larger unit. Evolutionary explanations cannot
economics complements ecology with the theoretical founda-
always be straightforward. It's not a matter of adding things
tion required to analyze the adaptation process (generation up. In these cases, we have to consider what the net balance is
of variations, their selection and propagation throughout the between multiple levels of selection. (Murmann et ai., 2003:
firm). It also complements ecology by proposing a study of 26, emphasis in original)
the relationship between the strategy and the technological
environment in order to steer the variations generation pro- The proposed model encompasses the idea of evolutionary
cess. On the other hand, ecology gathers firms with the same economics for generating strategies based on prior knowledge
organizational form into populations, allowing the study and of the environment and the activities of the firm, striving to
generalization of the influence of the logics of environmental steer the generation process of variations to be attempted in
selection on these corporate clusters. Along these lines, the organizational routines, skills, and competences. The model
view of ecology extends beyond sectoral boundaries, encom- supports three strategic levels: the business unit levei, which
passing intermediate analytical levels, such as that of the involves the quest for comparative advantages through lower
communities of firms. Moreover, the selection system of the costs or innovation (Porter, 1980); the corporate level, which
environment in ecology includes factors that complement involves the definition of product and market segments, busi-
evolutionary economics. nesses or industrial sectors in which the firm operates (Rumelt,
The proposed model is set forth in Figure 3, overlapping and 1974); and the collective level, which refers to initiatives based
entwining the approaches adopted by evolutionary economics on strategic cooperative partnerships (Astley & Fombrun,
and ecology in an effort at synthesis. The selection system of 1983). At the business unit level, the model allows studies of
11. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative
the relationship between the multitiered environmental selec- called "rational" by Campbell (1974), through which a duly
tive system and variations in processes throughout the firm's talented and educated group generates the possible action al-
value chain. At the corporate and collective levels, the model ternatives for responding to unknown environmental stimuli,
favors the comparative characterization of the population and preselecting the best options based on their "beliefs about
community dynamics of the firms involved with the sectors, the linkage between the choice of actions and the subsequent
businesses, and segments potentially considered for choice. For impact of those actions on outcomes" (Gavetti & Levinthal,
these two latter levels, it opens up the possibility for drawing 2000: 113). This process of generating and selecting alterna-
up and generalizing specific strategies for firms in the same tive actions, also called the "offline" search by Lippman and
population or community. The model also stresses the possibil- McCall (1976), limits the choice of variations to the simplified
ity of normative and descriptive studies of these aspects. mental model of the environment developed by the decision
The proposed model also assumes that the process of select- makers based on earlier experiences built up during the his-
ing variations in organizational routines and competences spurs tory of the firm (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Gavetti & Levinthal,
the evolution of the firm, when it is inductive, implemented 2000; Simon, 1991; Thagard, 1996). In order to ensure the
through learning processes based on trial and error (Campbell, possibility of effective invention, the firm should consider the
1974; Nelson & Winter, 1982). We believe in low inventive alternative actions generated by the "offline" process as part of
capacities from the prescient problem-solving standpoint, its portfolio of "tentative" alternative actions, trying out and
12. 98 Management Research
comparing them, in terms of their effects on the alignment organizational routines, skills, and competences). In general,
between the organization and its environment. It must assess the model offers three main contributions from the standpoint
truly new alternatives through experimentation. Lippman of future research into strategic management.
and McCall (1976) called this process the "online" search The first contribution is that the resulting model adopts a
mechanism. Consequently, the evolution of the firm requires multitier environmental selection standpoint that implies the
multiple tentative experiments sounding out alternative ac- planning and implementation of strategies in a dynamic and
tions, of which it will select only a few. Firms must view the Interactive manner, taking the context of the firm into account
failure as part of the evolution process and must weigh the as well as the context of the population and the communities
opportunity cost of not using the current options against the in which the organization functions. The failure or success of
payback on real inventions. Campbell (1981) referred to this the firm is related to its interaction with its environment, in a
issue as the "experimentation society." In order to make his idea feedback process among the routines of the firm, the environ-
quite clear, he began to use the phrase "blind variation," which mental selection factors, and the community and population
resulted in his model becoming known as the blind variation dynamics. Taking an example involving the population-
and selective retention (BVSR) model. It is worth stressing that community dynamic, for a century, from the second half of the
blind variations are not necessarily random. Previous selected eighteenth century to the second half of the nineteenth century,
variations and institutional processes (throughout the history the population of companies harvesting ice in the Boston re-
of the firm) may predispose the organization to participate in gion dominated ice supplies in the United States (Utterback,
certain experiments or block the chance of others. In other 1994: 145—166). However, the demand for steady supplies at
words, variations are not necessarily equiprobable and statisti- lower prices from the populations of breweries, meat packers,
cally independent (Campbell, 1974). and hospitais, among others in the southern United States
created market niches that could tolerate high prices, leverag-
CO CLUSIO S ing the rapid spread of a new population of machine-made ice
companies throughout the South, later replaced by electrome-
The purpose of this paper is to identify complementarities chanical refrigeration facilities. In just a few years, this thriving
between the population ecology and evolutionary econom- natural ice industry disappeared. The outcomes at the levei of
ics approaches that could contribute to the synthesis of the the community were favorable, responding to demands from
relationship between the organization and the environment consumer populations, notwithstanding the complete disap-
and its implications for a research model in strategic manage- pearance of an entire population of companies.
ment. This study was guided by metatriangulation—that is, The new model allows the development of descriptive
the multiparadigmatic theory-building investigation method and normative studies of the relationship among the com-
proposed by Lewis and Grimes (1999). We believe that the aim ponents of the proposed multitier environmental selection
of the work was accomplished. The outcome is an integrative system and the formulation and implementation processes of
model for these two evolutionary theoretical approaches. the enterprise strategies at the business unit, corporate, and
The resulting model intends to be broader ranging and more cooperative leveis.
complete in its analytical and explicatory capacities than the The second contribution is that the proposed conceptual
evolutionary economics and ecology models individually. On framework may be beneficial for studies of interorganizational
one hand, the ecology model does not offer grounds underpin- learning—that is, processes by which "one organization causes
ning the studies of organizational adaptation due to the lack a change in the capacities of another, either through experience
of attention paid to the adaptation processes of the firms. On sharing, or by somehow stimulating innovation" (Ingram,
the other hand, although the evolutionary economics model 2005: 642). For example, the proposed model supports the
presents the grounds for the study of organizational adaptation, study of the relationship between the population growth (or
it focuses only on the technological factor in the environmental failure) rates and the dissemination of certain routines among
selection process. The new model extends its predecessors by the population firms. Taking the example of the pharmaceuti-
grouping the conditioning factors for environmental selection cal industry in the United States, in the 1980s, the adoption
proposed by ecology (demographic processes, environmental of new productive routines based on DNA synthesizing and
dynamism, population density, institutional processes not sequencing and cell fusion methodologies for producing hy-
linked to technological innovation, and interpopulation bridomas led the population of pharmaceutical labs to develop
dynamics) and evolutionary economics (technological para- collaborative partnerships with small biotechnology firms
digm and regime; national, regional, and sectoral innovation dedicated to human therapeutics and diagnostics (Powell,
system) in order to study and analyze the adaptation of the White, Koput, & Owen-Smith, 2005). Ecology and evolution-
firms (generation, selection, and propagation of variations in ary economics do not have the conceptual foundations required
13. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 99
for studying the relationship between the dissemination of above on the population of harvested ice companies in United
these new routines in the population of pharmaceutical labs States, in which the dynamics of the community resulted in
and the population growth (or failure) rates when examined the disappearance of this once prosperous industry (Utterback,
separately. The ecology does not support the study of the dis- 1994: 145-166).
semination of the new routines and competences throughout In the model presented in this paper, the strategic reference
populations, and evolutionary economics does not support the focuses on the multitiered selection system (firm—population—
population of pharmaceutical labs as unit of analysis. community)—that is, the constraints of the precedent models
The third contribution of the model is that it has the ad- are supplanted.
vantage of responding to the criticism of strategy theories in Finally, we believe that this study establishes a conceptual
terms of their inability to generalize. Approaches based on framework that may serve as the basis for future research proj-
aggregate analyses at the industrial structure level as well as ects in strategic management. Aspects that may be researched
the resource-based view of the firm approach in the future that are not supported by ecology and evolution-
ary economics models individually include
take a single firm as a strategic referent, treating strategic
analysis as something done uniquely by that firm. [However,] if 1. Is there a difference in the survival rates of firms adopting
the application of scientific methods is more than just pretense, a specific routine compared with other firms in a given
there would seem to be something fundamentally wrong with population?
viewing the strategic problem as one of understanding what
2. Does the adoption of new routines ratchet up the mortal -
is unique about a particular firm and its situation. (Freeman,
1995: 219—220, emphasis in original) ity rate for companies in terms of the population?
3. What is the influence of demographic factors (associated
to age and size) in the process of changing routines and
Regarding the enunciation of strategies, the ecology model
competences for firms in a single population?
is descriptive and limited to generalizing strategies for deal-
4. Do interpopulation relationships of symbiosis or com-
ing with environmental dynamism (specialist strategy versus
petition influence the generation of variations through
generalist strategy). The model neglects the other factors
imitations among firms in the symbiotic or rival
conditioning environmental selection, as well as the levei of
populations?
analysis of the community—that is, the limited attention
5. Might demographic processes (associated with age and
paid to the adaptation process of the firm and its direction
size) influence the propagation of new routines in a single
by strategies.
population?
In turn, the evolutionary economics model enunciates
6. Does an increase in population density (cognitive legiti-
and generalizes strategies based on the technological factors
macy) persuade the firms in a population to make use of
conditioning the selection environment, in a normative man-
common routines and competences?
ner, using the industrial sector as the unit of analysis. There
7. Is there any relation between the growth rate (or shrink-
are three constraints in this model. The first is the concept
age) of imitators and environmental dynamism?
of the industrial sector which is limited for dealing with
8. Do the generalist and specialist strategies adopted by
the environmental dynamics because it may include several
firms in response to environmental dynamism influence
populations. This is the case of industrial sectors related to
the search routines?
the segments of capital and intermediate assets that group
different activities in terms of target markets, coordinating
structures, production processes, and technological contents
NOTES
configuring different populations. Taking the example of the
industry of Food Product Machinery Manufacturing (NAIC 1. The technological environment may be characterized by
[North American Industry Classification} 333294), it groups high opportunity conditions in the initial industrial develop-
machines ranging from orange juice extraction, meat and ment stages. Low opportunity conditions may be related to the
poultry processing, and chewing gum fabrication through to final industrial development stage. Moreover, opportunities vary
brewing and ice cream production, among others. The second among industries and technologies.
is its focus on only the technological-conditioning factors of 2. Cumulativeness may be analyzed at three leveis: individual
and technological, which is related to the specific characteristics
the selection environment, neglecting other selection factors.
of technologies and the cognitive nature of learning processes;
The third is that the model does not take into consideration the organizational, which is related to the organization of various
symbiotic and competitive relationships among populations learning activities, such as the existence of R&D laboratories;
located in different industries. The importance of considering and the firm, which is related to the quantity of resources required
the community level is perceived in the example presented for innovation.
14. 100 Management Research
REFERE CES --------- . 1981. Introduction: Getting ready for the experimenting
society. In L. Saxe & M. Fine (Eds.), Social experiments: Methods
Alchian, A. 1950. Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. for design and evaluation: 13—18. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Journal of Polítical Economy, 58(3): 211—222. Carroll, G.R. 1983. A stochastic model of organizational mor-
Amburgey, T.L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W.P. 1993. Resetting the tality: Review and reanalysis. Social Science Research, 12 (4):
clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. 303-329.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 51-73. Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 128-152.
Astley, W.G., & Fombrun, C.J. 1983. Collective strategy: The Coriat, B. 2000. The "abominable Ohno production system":
social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Competences, monitoring, and routines in Japanese pro-
Management Review, 8 (4): 576-587. duction systems. In G. Dosi, R.R. Nelson, & S.G. Winter
Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. 1993. How institutional constraints (Eds.), The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities:
affected the organization of early American telephony._/6w»«/ 213-243. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
of Law, Economia, and Organization, 9 (1): 98-126. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1992. A behavioral theory of the firm.
Baum, J.A.C. 1996. Organizational ecology. In S.R. Clegg, 2d ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
C. Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization Delacroix, J., & Carroll, G.R. 1983. Organizational foundlings:
studies: 77-115. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. An ecological study of the newspaper industries of Argen-
Baum, J.A.C., &McKelvey, B. 1999. DonaldT. Campbells evolv- tina and Ireland. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28 (1):
ing influence on organizational science. In J.A.C. Baum & 274-291.
B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public
of Donald T. Campbell: 1-15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. policy. Journal ofLaw & Economics, 16(1): 1—9.
Baum, J.A.C., & Oliver, C. 1991. Institutional linkages and Dosi, G. 1984. Technical change and industrial transformation: The
organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, theory and an application to the semiconductor industry. London:
36(2): 187-218. Macmillan.
Baum, J.A.C., & Singh, J. 1994. Organizational hierarchies and Dosi,G.,&Egidi, M. 1991. Substantive and procedural uncertain-
evolutionary processes: Some reflections on a theory of or- ty: An exploration of economic behaviors in changing environ-
ganizational evolution. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), ments. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, l (2): 145—168.
Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 3—20. New York: Dosi, G., & Teece, D. 1993. Organizational competence and
Oxford University Press. the boundaries of the firm. Working Paper no. 93-111,
Boston Consulting Group. 1968. Perspectives on experience. University of California at Berkeley.
Boston: BCG Press. Fischman, M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1991- Honeymoons and the
Brittain, J.W., & Wholey, D.H. 1988. Competition and coexis- liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration de-
tence in organizational communities: Population dynamics pendence in social an organizational relationships. Academy
in electronics components manufacturing. In G.R. Carroll of Management Review, 16 (2): 442^68.
(Ed.), Ecological models of organizations: 195-222. Cambridge, Fligstein, N. 1996. Markets as politics: A political-cultural ap-
MA: Ballinger. proach to market institutions. American Sociological Review,
Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T., & Sultan, R.G.M. 1975. Market 61 (4): 656-673.
share: A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 51 Freeman, J. 1995. Business strategy. In C. A. Montgomery (Ed.),
(1): 97-106. Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm: Towards a
Campbell, D.T. 1965. Variation and selective retention in socio- synthesis: 219—250. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
cultural evolution. In H.R. Barringer, G.I. Blanksten, & Freeman, J., & Hannan, M.T. 1983. Niche width and the dy-
R.W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A rein- namics of organizational populations. American Journal of
terpretation of evolutionary theory: 19^8. Cambridge, MA: Sociology, 88 (6): 1116-1145.
Schenkman. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking
--------- . 1969. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural backward: Cognitive and experimental search. Administrative
evolution. General Systems, 14 (1): 69—85. Science Quarterly, 45 (1): 113-137.
--------- . 1974. Unjustified variation and selective retention Gioia, D.A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on
in scientific discovery. In EJ. Ayala, & T. Dobzhansky theory building. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4):
(Eds.), Studies in thephilosophy ofbiology: 139—161. London: 584-602.
Macmülan. Grimes, A.J., & Rood, D.L. 1995. Beyond objectivism and
--------- . 1977a. Comment on "the natural selection model of con- relativism: Descriptive epistemologies. In J.P. Jones III,
ceptual evolution." Philosophy of Science, 44 (3): 502—507. W. Natter, & T.R. Schatzki (Eds.), Objectivity and its other:
--------- . 1977b. Keeping the data honest in the experimenting 161-178. New York: Guilford Press.
society. In H.W. Melton & J.H. David (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Hannan, M.T, & Carroll, G.R. 1992. Dynamics of organizational
dimensions of accounting for social goal and social organization: populations: Density, competition, and legitimation. New York:
37-42. Columbus, OH: Grid. Oxford University Press.
15. Population Ecology and Evolutionary Economics: Toward an Integrative Model 101
Hannan, M.T., Si Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of or- Murmann, J.P, Aldrich, H.E., Levinthal, D., & Winter, S.G.
ganizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5): 929—964. 2003. Evolutionary thoughts in management and organiza-
--------- . 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. tion theory at the beginning of the new millennium. Journal
American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149—164. -. 1989. of Management Inquiry, 12 (1): 22—40.
Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- Nelson, R.R., & Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of eco-
versity Press. nomic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hannan, M.T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G.R. 2007. Logics of organiza- --------- . 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in economics. Journal of
tions theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton Economic Perspective, 16 (2): 23—46.
University Press. Porter, M.E. 1980. Estratégia competitiva: Técnicas para análise de
Hatch, MJ. 1997. Organization theory: Modem symbolic and post- indústrias e da concorrência. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
modern perspective. London: Oxford University Press. Powell, W.W., White, D.R., Koput, K.W., & Owen-Smith, J.
Haveman, H.A. 1992. Between a rock and a hard place: Organi- 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth
zational change and performance under conditions of envi- of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences.
ronmental transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly, American Journal of Sociology, 110(4): 1132-1205.
37 (1): 48-75. Rao, H., & Singh, J.V. 1999- Types of variation in organizational
--------- . 1994. The ecological dynamics of organizational change: populations: The speciation of new organizational forms. In
Density and mass dependence in rates of entry into new J.A.C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organiza-
markets. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary tion science: In honor ofDonaldT. Campbell: 63—77. Thousand
dynamics of organizations: 153-165. New York: Oxford Oaks, CA: Sage.
University Press. Reve, T. 1990. The firm as a nexus of internai and externai con-
Hawley, A.H. 1966. Ecologia humana. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. tracts. In M. Aoki, B. Gustafsson, & O. Williamson (Eds.),
Ingram, P. 2005. Interorganizational learning. In J.A.C. Baum The firm as a nexus of treatises. London: Sage.
(Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations: 642—663. Rumelt, R. 1974. Strategy, structure, and economic performance.
Malden, MA: Blackwell. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ingram, P.L. 1993- Old, tired, and ready to die: The age of the Saviotti, P.P. 1997. Innovation systems and evolutionary theories.
dependence of organizational mortality reconsidered. Paper In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institu-
presented at Annual Meeting of the Academy of Manage- tions and organizations: 180—199- London: Pinter.
ment, Atlanta, GA. Saviotti, P.P., & Metcalfe, J.S. 1991- Present development and
Levinthal, D.A. 1994. Surviving Schumpeterian environments: trends in evolutionary economics. In P. Saviotti, & J.S. Met-
An evolutionary perspective. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh calfe (Eds.), Evolutionary theories of economic and technological
(Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 167—176. New change: 1—29. Berkshire, UK: Harwood Academic.
York: Oxford University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The theory of economic development. Cam-
--------- . 2007. Bringing selection back into our evolutionary bridge: Harvard University Press.
theories of innovation. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Simon, H.A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quar-
Perspectives on innovation: 293-307. Cambridge: Cambridge terly Journal of Economics, 69 (1): 99-118.
University Press. --------- . 1991. Organizations and markets. Journal of Economie
Lewis, M.W., &Grimes, AJ. 1999- Metatriangulation: Building Perspectives, 5 (2): 25-44.
theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Thagard, P. 1996. Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge,
Review, 24 (4): 672-690. MA: MIT Press.
Lippman, S., & McCall, J. 1976. The economics of job search: A Tushman, M.L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinui-
survey. Economic Inquiry, 14(2): 155—189. ties and organizational environments. Administrative Science
Lundvall, B.A. 1992. ational systems of innovation: Towards a Quarterly, 31 (3): 439-465.
theory of Interactive learning. London: Pinter. Utterback, J. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston:
Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral system of innovation and production. Harvard Business School Press.
Research Policy, 31 (2): 247-264. Van de Ven, A.H., & Garud, R. 1994. The coevolution of tech-
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, C. 1993. Technological regimes and firm nical and institutional events in the development of an
behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2 (1): 41-71. innovation. In J.A.C. Baum & J. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1993- Organizations, 2d ed. Cam- dynamics of organizations: 425-443. New York: Oxford
bridge, MA: Blackwell. University Press.
McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizationalsystematics. Berkeley: Univer- Witt, U. 1992. Evolutionary concepts in economics. Eastern
sity of Califórnia Press. Economic Journal, 18 (4): 405-419.
Montgomery, C.A. 1995. Resource-based and evolutionary theo-
ries of the firm: Towards a synthesis. Norvell, MA: Kluwer
Academic.
