voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2024-7-25-52voprecotest-5034Research ArticleВОПРОСЫ ТЕОРИИISSUES OF THEORYКонцепция культурной эволюции Ф. А. Хайека и эволюционная психология (Часть вторая)The theory of cultural evolution by F. A. Hayek and evolutionary psychology (Part two)https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2312-2110КапелюшниковР. И.KapeliushnikovR. I.

Капелюшников Ростислав Исаакович, чл.-корр. РАН, д. э. н., гл.  н. с.;

замдиректора Центра трудовых исследований

Москва

Rostislav I. Kapeliushnikov

Moscow

rostis@hse.ruНациональный исследовательский институт мировой экономики и международных отношений имени Е. М. Примакова РАН; Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияPrimakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, RAS; HSE UniversityRussian Federation202412072024072552Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20242024Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/5034

Концепция культурной эволюции Ф. А. Хайека ретроспективно предстает как сложная и глубокая система, во многом предвосхитившая идеи современной эволюционной психологии. Во второй части статьи рассматривается ее ключевой элемент — идея группового отбора, которую Хайек использовал для объяснения того, почему в длительной эволюционной перспективе с большей вероятностью выживают более эффективные социальные порядки, способные обеспечивать более высокий уровень жизни и поддерживать более многочисленное население. Это послужило основанием для его обвинений в переходе на позиции методологического холизма. Однако корректный анализ демонстрирует, что групповой отбор и методологический индивидуализм вполне совместимы, выступая в понимании Хайека как два аспекта единой объяснительной схемы.

The paper highlights the theory of cultural evolution by F. A. Hayek, which in retrospect appears as a complex and deep system, in many respects anticipating the ideas of modern evolutionary psychology. The second part dicusses its key element — the idea of group selection, which Hayek used to explain why, in the long-run evolutionary perspective, more efficient social orders capable of providing a higher living standard and supporting a larger population are more likely to survive. This became grounds for his accusations of shifting onto the position of methodological holism. However, under closer examination group selection and methodological individualism turn out to be quite compatible, appearing in Hayek’s understanding as two aspects of a unite explanatory scheme.

Хайеккультурная эволюцияспонтанный порядокгрупповой отборэволюционная психологияHayekcultural evolutionspontaneous ordergroup selectionevolutionary psychologyReferencesДокинз Р. (2022). Эгоистичный ген. М.: Corpus.Dawkins R. (2022). The selfish gene. Moscow: Corpus. (In Russian).Палмер Дж., Палмер Л. (2007). Эволюционная психология. Секреты поведения Homo Sapiens. СПб.: Прайм-Еврознак.Palmer J., Palmer L. (2007). The ultimate origins of human behavior. St. Petersburg: Prime-Evroznak. (In Russian).Хайек Ф. А. (1992). Пагубная самонадеянность. М.: Новости.Hayek F. von (1992). The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism. Moscow: Novosti. (In Russian).Хайек Ф. А. (2006). Право, законодательство, свобода. М.: Навигатор.Hayek F. von. (2006). Law, legislation and liberty. A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. Moscow: Navigator. (In Russian).Хайек Ф. А. (2018). Конституция свободы. М.: Новое издательство.Hayek F. von. (2018). The constitution of liberty. Moscow: Novoe Izdatelststvo. (In Russian).Хайек Ф. А. (2020). Заметки об эволюции систем правил поведения // Хайек Ф. А. Рынок и другие порядки. М.: Интермедиатор. С. 364—383.Hayek F. von (2020). Notes on the evolution of systems of rules of conduct. In: The market and other orders. Moscow: Intermediator, pp. 335—363. (In Russian).Alchian A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 15—36. https://doi.org/10.1086/256940Alchian A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 15—36. https://doi.org/10.1086/256940Alchian A. A., Demsetz H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 777—795.Alchian A. A., Demsetz H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 777—795.Andreozzi L. (2005). Hayek reads the literature on the emergence of norms. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 227—247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-005-2832-3Andreozzi L. (2005). Hayek reads the literature on the emergence of norms. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 227—247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-005-2832-3Boettke P. J. (2018). F. A. Hayek: Economics, political economy and social philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41160-0Boettke P. J. (2018). F. A. Hayek: Economics, political economy and social philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41160-0Boyd R., Richerson P. (2005). The origin and evolution of culture. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195165241.001.0001Boyd R., Richerson P. (2005). The origin and evolution of culture. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195165241.001.0001Cosmides L., Tooby J. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Santa Barbara: Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California.Cosmides L., Tooby J. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Santa Barbara: Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California.Gaus G. (2006). The evolution of society and mind: Hayek’s system of ideas. In: E. Feser (ed.). The Cambridge companion to Hayek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232—258. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521849772.013Gaus G. (2006). The evolution of society and mind: Hayek’s system of ideas. In: E. Feser (ed.). The Cambridge companion to Hayek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232—258. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521849772.013Henrich J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 3—35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5Henrich J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 3—35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5Hodgson G. M. (1991). Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution: An evaluation in light of Vanberg’s critique. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 67—82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000912Hodgson G. M. (1991). Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution: An evaluation in light of Vanberg’s critique. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 67—82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000912Koppl R. (2005). Economics evolving: An introduction to the volume. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Amsterdam: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1—16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07001-2Koppl R. (2005). Economics evolving: An introduction to the volume. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Amsterdam: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1—16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07001-2Langlois R. N. (1986). Rationality, institutions, and explanation. In: R. N. Langlois (ed.). Economics as a process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Langlois R. N. (1986). Rationality, institutions, and explanation. In: R. N. Langlois (ed.). Economics as a process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Langlois R. N. (2004). Comment on “Group selection and methodological individualism: Compatible and complementary” by Douglas Glen Whitman. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 261—266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07012-7Langlois R. N. (2004). Comment on “Group selection and methodological individualism: Compatible and complementary” by Douglas Glen Whitman. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 261—266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07012-7Marciano A. (2009). Why Hayek is a Darwinian (after all)? Hayek and Darwin on social evolution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 52—61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.04.005Marciano A. (2009). Why Hayek is a Darwinian (after all)? Hayek and Darwin on social evolution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 52—61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.04.005Rubin P. H., Gick E. (2004). Hayek and modern evolutionary theory. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 79—100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07005-XRubin P. H., Gick E. (2004). Hayek and modern evolutionary theory. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 79—100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07005-XSchaefer A. (2021). Hayek’s twin ideas: Reconciling methodological individualism and group selection. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1209—1225. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beab036Schaefer A. (2021). Hayek’s twin ideas: Reconciling methodological individualism and group selection. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 1209—1225. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beab036Smith E. A. (1994). Semantics, theory, and methodological individualism in the groupselection controversy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 636—637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036414Smith E. A. (1994). Semantics, theory, and methodological individualism in the groupselection controversy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 636—637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036414Trivers R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 35—57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755Trivers R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 35—57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755Vanberg V. V. (1986). Spontaneous market order and social rules: A critique of F. A. Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 75—100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000808Vanberg V. V. (1986). Spontaneous market order and social rules: A critique of F. A. Hayek’s theory of cultural evolution. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 75—100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000808Whitman D. G. (1998). Hayek contra Pangloss on evolutionary systems. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45—66. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009058615310Whitman D. G. (1998). Hayek contra Pangloss on evolutionary systems. Constitutional Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45—66. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009058615310Whitman D. G. (2004). Group selection and methodological individualism: Compatible and complementary. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 221—250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07010-3Whitman D. G. (2004). Group selection and methodological individualism: Compatible and complementary. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 221—250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07010-3Williams G. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Williams G. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Wilson D. S. (1975). A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 143—146. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.72.1.143Wilson D. S. (1975). A theory of group selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 143—146. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.72.1.143Wilson D. S., Wilson E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundations of sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 327—348. https://doi.org/10.1086/522809Wilson D. S., Wilson E. O. (2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundations of sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 327—348. https://doi.org/10.1086/522809Zywicki T. (2004). Reconciling group selection and methodological individualism. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 267—77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07013-9Zywicki T. (2004). Reconciling group selection and methodological individualism. In: R. Koppl (ed.). Evolutionary psychology and economic theory. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 267—77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2134(04)07013-9

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.