With its ability to incessantly create new actions and innovations the economy presents itself as an open, evolving (self-transforming) system. In their ‘economics for a creative world’ Koppl et al. (2014) try to account for the features of that system and discuss methodological consequences for its analysis. Claiming that ‘ . . . novelty and innovation are uncaused’ and that ‘ . . . no laws entail the evolution of the econosphere’ they hold that fundamental scientific principles do not apply. In the present comment it will be argued that both claims are difficult to defend. Causality and law-like hypotheses also apply to novelty and innovation.

Far from inspiring that paradigmatic shift in economics that was envisioned by its early proponents, ‘evolutionary’ economics today represents a patchwork of unconnected theories and topics. In other disciplines, evolutionary thinking has induced a paradigm shift, resulting from the adoption of the Darwinian paradigm extended by hypotheses about cultural evolution. Concerning economics, however, even a preliminary discourse on the potential of this paradigm for future theorizing remains controversial. The present paper therefore focuses on the methodological implications of the paradigm. It is shown that hitherto unnoticed common ground can be identified underlying the diversity of approaches to evolutionary economics. It rests in the modalities of causal explanations germane to the Darwinian paradigm. Understanding these modalities also makes it possible to distinguish evolutionary from non-evolutionary research irrespective of the specific theories and topics concerned. The argument is illustrated for the exemplary case of institutional economics.

Epistemic arguments play a significant role in the foundations of market liberalism as exemplified, in particular, by the work of F. A. Hayek. Competition in free markets is claimed to be the most effective device both to utilize the knowledge dispersed throughout society as well as create new knowledge through innovation competition. The fast pace with which new economic opportunities are discovered and costs are reduced is considered proof of the benefits of free markets to the common good. However, with its inherently unpredictable consequences, innovation competition is actually ambiguous in this respect. This feature raises questions over the stringency of market liberal pleas that oppose quests for redistribution and environmental concerns in an absolute fashion.

Organizational routines coordinate the interactions and use of knowledge within firms. Efficient routines can imply a competitive advantage for a firm, deficient ones a disadvantage. This depends not only on how smoothly the intra-organizational interactions are in fact orchestrated, but also on what goals this orchestration serves: the organizational objectives or the convenience, effort minimization, or other idiosyncratic goals of involved organization members. Since organizational routines represent a case of collective action, the conditions under which organizational routines emerge cannot be neglected. They hinge on cognitive and motivational attitudes of the organization members suggesting an individualistic perspective on organizational routines.