In March 1997 a meeting of the EAEPE Steering Committee (now Council) agreed the following resolution by an overwhelming majority:

“The EAEPE Steering Committee believes that it is both opportune and desirable to change the name of the association to the ‘European Political Economy Association’. The association should continue to define itself in broad and pluralist terms, present itself as the broad forum in Europe containing multiple sources of expertise, and foster genuine, pluralistic and interdisciplinary debate. The Steering Committee welcomes the broadest possible debate on this proposal for a change of name, before, in due course, the question is resolved by the membership as a whole.”

This issue was never resolved by the membership and I believe that it should be revisited. While I am a devotee of what may be described as “evolutionary economics”, I believe that the word “Evolutionary” in the EAEPE name is a barrier to the growth and development of the association.

If you ask a dozen “evolutionary economists” what “evolutionary” means they will give you about a dozen different answers. Everyone is entitled to their view. But there is no point in pretending that there is a consensus view on what it means. To some scholars it means Darwinism; to others structural change; to others technical change; to others complexity, and so on.

Removing “evolutionary” from the EAEPE name makes EAEPE more inclusive rather than less. Those that are devoted to a narrow interpretation of “evolutionary” make EAEPE less inclusive by insisting on a narrow or specific meaning. There is a risk that we are perceived as a “narrow” or “special interest” association.

Another severe problem with the term “evolutionary” is that it deters an important segment of social scientists – particularly in sociology – who do not like the term. In his 2007 book Evolution for Everyone, David Sloan Wilson wrote: “Say the word ‘evolution’ and some people hear the phrase ‘genetic determinism’.” That’s true for several sociologists. While we may believe that theirs is a misunderstanding, our very elevation of the term “evolutionary” is blocking dialogue with several sociologists in SASE and elsewhere. These are people with whom we should be in close conversation and collaboration.

Is there a danger of neoclassical infiltration of EAEPE? If so, the existing name does not stop this. There is nothing in “evolutionary”, “political economy”, or “institutional” that repels neoclassicals. The best way of retaining the broad and inclusive nature of our association is by open discussion and debate, and by adopting a name that fully reflects our pluralism.

EAEPE rightly declares itself as a “pluralist forum”. Either the term “evolutionary” means something specific, and our pluralism is limited only to those defined “evolutionary” thinkers, or “evolutionary” is a broad and inclusive term that means specifically little and thus impairs our pluralist mission. Let’s take our pluralism seriously.

Some people object to the term “political economy”. But that is already in the EAEPE name. “Political economy” has its problematic connotations and ambiguities, but it is the historic term to describe the science of the production and distribution of wealth. No phrase is without its problems, but retaining “political economy” is probably the best solution in the circumstances.

The final argument for changing the EAEPE name is a strategic one. By removing “evolutionary” EAEPE (thus becoming EPEA) can situate itself as the pluralistic forum for the study of economics and economic systems in Europe. There is no rival. The European Economic Association is narrow and orthodox. We should take the lead.

Changing the EAEPE name can help give EAEPE a new lease of life. I would welcome the views of other members.

Geoff Hodgson
Honorary Life Member and former General Secretary
2 October 2009