Into a New Paradigm

  • Oldrich BubakEmail author
  • Henry Jacek


The global financial system and its recent crises highlight issues inherent to traditional worldviews in the study and regulation of such systems. While many scholars have long appreciated social and other complex systems had special qualities, it is only recently that elements of a new frame of reference, the complexity paradigm, started to appear in the mainstream scholarship and practice. This chapter familiarizes the reader with complex adaptive systems—at once a concept defining the complexity paradigm and a field of inquiry facilitating it—and discusses their importance. Setting out to place the new thinking and its implications in a larger context, it charts a series of historical debates up to the present intersection. A select overview of complexity research with its questions and answers follows.


  1. Arthur, W. Brian. 2015. Complexity and the economy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Byrne, David. 1998. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ciepley, David. 2000. “Why the state was dropped in the first place: A prequel to Skocpol’s ‘bringing the state back in.’” A Journal of Politics and Society 14 (2–3): 157–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ciro, Tony. 2016. The global financial crisis: Triggers, responses and aftermath. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Claessens, Stijn, and Laura Kodres. 2014. “The regulatory responses to the global financial crisis: Some uncomfortable questions.” International Monetary Fund Working Papers. WP 14/46.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, Kevin. 2011. “Regulatory reform post the global financial crisis: An overview.” The Australian APEC Study Centre. RMIT University.Google Scholar
  8. Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. 2013. International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1989. “Three political economies of the welfare state.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26 (1):10–36.Google Scholar
  10. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). 2011. The financial crisis inquiry report, authorized edition: Final report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Geyer, Robert. 2003a. “Beyond the third way.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5 (2): 237–257.Google Scholar
  13. Geyer, Robert. 2003b. “Europeanisation, complexity, and the British welfare state.” Paper presented to the UACES/ESRC. University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, Peter. 2003. “Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research.” In Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Helbing, Dirk, ed. 2008. Managing complexity: Insights, concepts, applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Helbing, Dirk, ed. 2012. Social self-organization. Understanding Complex Systems. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  17. Helbing, Dirk. 2015. Thinking ahead—Essays on big data, digital revolution, and participatory market society. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Helbing, Dirk, Dirk Brockmann, Thomas Chadefaux, Karsten Donnay, Ulf Blanke, Olivia Woolley-Meza, Mehdi Moussaid et al. 2015. “Saving human lives: What complexity science and information systems can contribute.” Journal of Statistical Physics 158 (3): 735–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Immergut, Ellen. 2008. “Institutional constraints on policy.” In The oxford handbook of public policy, edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert Edward Goodin. The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jervis, Robert. 1997. System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, Neil F. 2009. Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory. London: Oneworld Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kavalski, Emilian. 2007. “The fifth debate and the emergence of complex international relations theory: Notes on the application of complexity theory to the study of international life.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20 (3): 435–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keohane, Robert O. 2009. “The old IPE and the new.” Review of International Political Economy 16 (1): 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kickert, Walter. 2012. “State responses to the fiscal crisis in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.” Public Management Review 14 (3): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kickert, Walter, and Tiina Randma-Liiv. 2015. Europe managing the crisis: The politics of fiscal consolidation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kohli, Atul, Peter Evans, Peter J. Katzenstein, Adam Przeworski, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, James C. Scott, and Theda Skocpol. 1995. “The role of theory in comparative politics: A symposium.” World Politics 48 (1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Levine, Ross. 2012. “The governance of financial regulation: Reform lessons from the recent crisis.” International Review of Finance 12 (1): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2009. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2013. Political bubbles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2012. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. North, Douglass C. 1993. “Institutions and credible commitment.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 149 (1): 11–23.Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, Elinor. 2007. “Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework.” In Theories of the policy process, edited by Paul Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Overton, Willis F. 2015. “Processes, relations, and relational-developmental-systems.” In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, vol. 1, edited by Richard M. Lerner, Willis F. Overton, and Peter C. M. Molenaar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Pierson, Paul. 2000a. “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierson, Paul. 2000b. “The limits of design: Explaining institutional origins and change.” Governance 13 (4): 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2003. “Artificial societies: Multi agent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory.” Sociological Methods and Research 31: 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sawyer, R. Keith, 2005. Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stacey, Ralph D. 2003. Complexity and group processes: A radically social understanding of individuals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Steinmo, Sven, 2010. The evolution of modern states: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Taleb, Nicholas. 2007. The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. 1st ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  42. Taleb, Nicholas, and Mark Blyth. 2011. “The Black Swan of Cairo: How suppressing volatility makes the world less predictable and more dangerous.” In The new Arab revolt: What happened, what it means, and what comes next, edited by Council on Foreign Relations. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  43. Varoufakis, Yanis. 2015. The global minotaur: America, Europe and the future of the global economy. London: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  44. Walby, Sylvia. 2004. “Complexity theory, globalisation and diversity.” Lancaster: Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Paper presented to a conference of the British Sociological Association, University of York, April 2004.Google Scholar
  45. Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum mind and social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wiener, Antje. 2006. “Constructivist approaches in international relations theory: Puzzles and promises.” SSRN Electronic Journal.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations