ABSTRACT
Part I illustrated both the intuition on entrepreneurial behavior as well as the overwhelming influence of methodology on economic thinking. The role of entrepreneurs in economy has always been recognized among economists. Nevertheless, in economic theory, the entrepreneur has gradually been buried in oblivion during the accession of a more and more dominant neoclassical paradigm. It is not surprising that neoclassical theory has become the paradigm of orthodox economics, as it is hard to escape the fascination of its clear-cut methodology, a methodology that renders invulnerable consistency by means of its mathematical formulation. The elegance of its formal treatment and the rigor in its reasoning elucidates tremendously the complexity of economic phenomena-and also offers the unambiguity of a deterministic world. The concessions to be made show up in the set of assumptions required by neoclassical methodology, concessions at the cost of the entrepreneur. The postulate of perfect rationality, including complete information and foresight, thereby is the most doubtful core assumption in such a framework.1 Contrarily, if we relax the assumption of perfect rationality, we move towards a non-teleological framework, a world of arbitrariness, which seems to disallow any general propositions about economic behavior. The challenging venture to face such neoclassical shortcomings led to a movement amongst economists, which has become known as evolutionary economics.2 To develop a possible evolutionary setting, the next section on the philosophy of science will sketch both the evolution of economic theory and the corollary of evolutionary theory as its necessary and logical endorsement, contrasting the neoclassical paradigm, in order to overcome some neoclassical shortcomings.
