Suchergebnisse

1. Why a Science of Complexity? 1. - 2. Basic Concepts of Complexity Science 23. - 3. A Crucial Test Case: Why the Baltic Is Not the Balkans 39. - 4. Culture and the Capacity to Cope with Complexity 55. - 5. Complexity Science as a Tool to Understand the New Eurasia 71. - 6. How Complexity Concepts Explain Past and Present Fitness 107. - 7. Hyperpower Challenged: Prospects for Americans 121. - 8. What Future for the American Dream? 147. - 9. Why Is South Korea Not North Korea? 165. - 10. Toward a New Paradigm for Global Studies 179. - 11. Challenges to Complexity Science 201

AbstractWe develop a representation of creative evolution in economics based on the theory of the adjacent possible. We start by introducing an epistemological framework for economic theorizing that copes with unknowability and the unlistability of possibility spaces. From this framework, we discuss the use of knowledge in creatively evolving systems and derive four main results: that local knowledge is itself a mechanism of movement through the adjacent possible; that all action is entrepreneurial action; that causality is ambiguous; and that individuals can agree to disagree. We then apply these results to decision-making, innovation, and the emergence of institutions and commons in creatively evolving systems.

In September 2016, in Boston, this paper was awarded the prize for best paper appearing in JOIE in the previous calendar year - this prize is entitled to Elinor Ostrom, 2009 Nobel Award winner in Economy. ; International audience ; Drawing on current biology, we argue that the phase space of economic evolution is not stable. Thus, there are no entailing laws of economic dynamics. In this sense, economic dynamics are creative and the economy is not a causal system. Because economic dynamics are creative, the implicit frame of analysis for the econosphere changes in unprestatable and non­algorithmic ways. New­venture, social, and political entrepreneurs solve the frame problem of the econosphere. Economic evolution is unpredictable, not entailed, and the number of things traded (" cambiodiversity ") increases over time. Our metatheoretic framework points out how institutions, entrepreneurs, and disparate actors enable what we call " novelty intermediation. " We provide examples of novelty intermediation from Rennaissance Italy to Silicon Valley. Our framework does not automatically provide clear policy prescriptions in part because our main result is negative. It may nevertheless provide a useful prolegomena to a future economics fit for a creative world. [T]he matter with which the chemist deals is the same always: but economics, like biology, deals with a matter, of which the inner nature and constitution, as well as the outer form, are constantly changing.

In September 2016, in Boston, this paper was awarded the prize for best paper appearing in JOIE in the previous calendar year - this prize is entitled to Elinor Ostrom, 2009 Nobel Award winner in Economy. ; International audience ; Drawing on current biology, we argue that the phase space of economic evolution is not stable. Thus, there are no entailing laws of economic dynamics. In this sense, economic dynamics are creative and the economy is not a causal system. Because economic dynamics are creative, the implicit frame of analysis for the econosphere changes in unprestatable and non­algorithmic ways. New­venture, social, and political entrepreneurs solve the frame problem of the econosphere. Economic evolution is unpredictable, not entailed, and the number of things traded (" cambiodiversity ") increases over time. Our metatheoretic framework points out how institutions, entrepreneurs, and disparate actors enable what we call " novelty intermediation. " We provide examples of novelty intermediation from Rennaissance Italy to Silicon Valley. Our framework does not automatically provide clear policy prescriptions in part because our main result is negative. It may nevertheless provide a useful prolegomena to a future economics fit for a creative world. [T]he matter with which the chemist deals is the same always: but economics, like biology, deals with a matter, of which the inner nature and constitution, as well as the outer form, are constantly changing.

AbstractIn response to Pelikan, Witt, Foster, and Colander, we reiterate our main contributions: (1) our more careful demonstration of why 'mechanistic' models have limited application, (2) our account of novelty as a system-level phenomenon, and (3) our identification of 'novelty intermediation' as important to creative economic dynamics. We also address some of the criticisms raised by the commenters. Pavel Pelikan's idea of stochastic causality does not somehow eliminate unprestateable change. We do challenge certain strong notions of universal causation, as Ulrich Witt notes, but such notions are probably best abandoned. Although, we do not repudiate mathematical modeling as our paper suggested to John Foster, we may give less scope than Foster to such methods. Finally, we point out the extreme difficulty of implementing the sort of engineering vision Colander articulates.