We present the theory of the collaborative innovation bloc (CIB), an evolving system of innovation within which activity takes place over time. We show how the application of the CIB perspective can help make institutional and evolutionary economics more concrete, relevant, and persuasive, especially regarding policy prescriptions. Such policy actions should strive to improve the antifragility of CIBs and the economic system as a whole, thus enabling individual CIBs and the broader economic system to thrive when faced with adversity. With this in mind, we develop heuristics to evaluate CIB antifragility before using Sweden's economic and institutional evolution since the 1970s as a backdrop for identifying a set of institutional areas where reform can be undertaken to move in this direction.

In Western societies, in-kind gifts are generally more common than money gifts. However, exchange of in-kind gifts potentially involves inefficiency. Several models have been suggested to explain the in-kind gift-giving practice as a rational behaviour under certain assumptions about givers’ preferences and information and/or technological constraints. Unlike many Western societies, China has a long tradition of money gift-giving. So-called red packets are commonly exchanged. We argue that models developed to rationalise Western norms of gift-giving cannot fully account for Chinese gift-giving practices, and some Chinese practices even contradict existing theories. We collect Chinese household data through two surveys to establish stylised facts about gift-giving. We find that money gifts are commonly appropriate, depending on the occasion and relationship between givers and receivers. Moreover, for every occasion and relationship, money is more appropriate than gift vouchers. Finally, unlike studies focusing on Western gift-giving, our study finds no evidence that givers need to compensate receivers with higher value when giving money gifts rather than in-kind gifts. Our results are consistent with the view that the acceptability of money vis-à-vis in-kind gifts is governed primarily by social convention rather than information and technological constraints or the specific preferences of givers.

Leeson (2020) objects to the conflation of economics with applied econometrics, and argues that economics instead should be thought of as the implications of the assumption that individuals maximize, i.e. rational choice theory. But, narrowly defining economics in terms of method demands that we ignore alternative theoretical frameworks which potentially hold explanatory power about topics thought of as economics, all for the sake of a definition. I suggest that applying rational choice theory and applying econometrics became the comparative advantage for economists relative to other social scientists by accidents of history. These comparative advantages largely persist. It is reasonable to call applications of both rational choice theory and econometrics to topics outside conventional economic topics ‘economics’ simply because these applications remain the comparative advantage of economists.