Objectives of the Review of Evolutionary Political Economy’s ‘Manifesto’ and editorial proposals on world problems, complex systems, historico-institutional and corruption issues

This paper presents results of a close textual analysis of the Review of Evolutionary Political Economy’s (REPE’s) ‘Editorial Manifesto’ (Cincotti et al. Rev Evol Polit Econ 1:1–12, 2020), with special reference given to journal objectives, including making proactive editorial proposals for promoting, deepening and potentially modifying such objectives through time. In the process, it isolates six main objectives of the journal, including publishing papers on the big issues of the day using evolutionary themes; questions of integration and unification of schools and trends; studying the process of change through complex-systems, history and other methods; utilizing trans-, multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives; deepening international political economy (IPE) concerns within post-Keynesian and institutional schools; and scrutinizing differences between the schools and trends of evolutionary political economy (EPE). Ten proactive editorial proposals are made to mostly promote or in some cases adjust objectives. For instance, it suggests that special issues on big issues/problems apply especially EPE concepts and principles in some detail. It argues for papers on linkages between complexity theory and circular and cumulative causation. It encourages research on the positive and negative processes of innovation through the prism of the instrumental and ceremonial functions of technology and institutions. It suggests deepening an understanding of historical specificity and evolution vis-à-vis change and metamorphosis. It recommends scrutinizing the differences between trans-, multi- and interdisciplinary analyses; strengthening the IPE dimensions of all schools and trends of EPE; and encouraging papers on the emergent relationship between micro-meso-macro-global real world processes. It stresses the need to assess periodically the relative power of various schools and trends of EPE, and of publishing independent papers about editorial directions and problems. It outlines forms of editorial corruption of objectives and how they may be prevented or moderated, and proposes that objectives be kept firmly in mind when eliciting, refereeing and assessing awards, papers, symposia and special issues. Lastly it proposes the establishment of an independent Editorial Ombudsperson or committee for resolving disputes and anomalies; regular communication between REPE editors, boards and others on critical issues; and the publishing of yearly, five-yearly and decadal reviews and reports concerning progress with objectives for the journal.