I came across this researching for a chapter I'm writing, having been pulled down a rabbit hole by the astonishing extremes of Larry Arnhart's analyses of "Darwinian Conservatism". Was happy to find this brief entry that, to me, quickly and efficiently dismantles Arnhart's overall thrust. I couldn't agree with Wilkins more that it is hard (if not impossible) to determine the "appropriate" mix of control and "open market access". (Though I disagree that "corruption and nepotism are the default behavior of humans" -- probably because I think "default behavior" is a meaningless term; there is no human existing apart from a specific history and context, and thus behavior is context dependent. Nepotism and corruption are tendencies given certain situations, and not in others.)
Arnhart's take on this, and on Bowles and Gintis's work, is rather shocking to me... it's one of those things that seems to assume he's "got it right", rather than--as implied by Wilkins's post--realizing that "it" varies, and does not really prove either "side" right. The best strategy for governing society, and its resulting or conflicting behavior, cannot be proscribed by simple and general rules, imho.