Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Nick Winder
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Co-evolutionary theories from the biological sciences have been widely adopted by researchers in other fields of research. We take the unusual step of looking beyond the more recent literature of the 1960s to co-evolutionary models from the nineteenth century. We argue that the Darwin–Huxley synthesis was unusual and that obscuring this distinctiveness merely represents conventional ideas about complexity, uncertainty and co-dynamic change in an unfamiliar form. The price we pay for this new interpretation is a degradation of insight and potential applicability in the field of competitive, sustainable development. By advocating a pragmatic distinction of evolutionary from mechanistic dynamics, we make connections between co-evolutionary theory and earlier research on complex dynamics, particularly in respect of socio-natural adaptability. Practical advice is given to help researchers distinguish co-evolutionary dynamics from more general co-dynamic processes, and policy instruments for managing co-evolutionary stress are outlined.
Author(s): Winder NP, McIntosh BS, Jeffrey P
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Ecological Economics
Year: 2005
Volume: 54
Issue: 4
Pages: 347-361
Print publication date: 17/05/2005
ISSN (print): 0921-8009
ISSN (electronic): 1873-6106
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.017
Notes: Paper written as part contribution to Aquadapt Project (www.aquadapt.net) which I serve as a task leader. This paper dealt with Dick Norgaard's now famous book 'Development Betrayed' (one of the most highly cited sources in the pages of Ecological Economics) and suggested a re-conceptualisation of co-evolutionary theory to make it more readily applicable. Sadly, Norgaard didn't approve and wrote a rebuttal: Norgaard, R.B. 2005. Bubbles in a back eddy: A commentary on “The origin, diagnostic attributes and practical application of coevolutionary theory”. Ecological Economics 54: 362–365 To which I responded with: Winder, N. (2005) Modernism, Evolution and Vaporous Visions of Future Unity: Clarification in response to Norgaard. Ecological Economics. 54:366-369 There has since been further comment in other journals, for example Giorgios Kallis' contribution in Volume 62 of Ecol Econ.
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
