Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Into a New Paradigm

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Trivialization and Public Opinion

  • 131 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arthur, W. Brian. 2015. Complexity and the economy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, David. 1998. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciro, Tony. 2016. The global financial crisis: Triggers, responses and aftermath. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Davis, Kevin. 2011. “Regulatory reform post the global financial crisis: An overview.” The Australian APEC Study Centre. RMIT University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. 2013. International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1989. “Three political economies of the welfare state.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26 (1):10–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, Robert. 2003a. “Beyond the third way.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5 (2): 237–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, Robert. 2003b. “Europeanisation, complexity, and the British welfare state.” Paper presented to the UACES/ESRC. University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Helbing, Dirk, ed. 2008. Managing complexity: Insights, concepts, applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing, Dirk, ed. 2012. Social self-organization. Understanding Complex Systems. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-24004-1.

  • Helbing, Dirk. 2015. Thinking ahead—Essays on big data, digital revolution, and participatory market society. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jervis, Robert. 1997. System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Neil F. 2009. Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory. London: Oneworld Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert O. 2009. “The old IPE and the new.” Review of International Political Economy 16 (1): 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, Walter. 2012. “State responses to the fiscal crisis in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.” Public Management Review 14 (3): 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, Walter, and Tiina Randma-Liiv. 2015. Europe managing the crisis: The politics of fiscal consolidation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Ross. 2012. “The governance of financial regulation: Reform lessons from the recent crisis.” International Review of Finance 12 (1): 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2009. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2013. Political bubbles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Sandra D. 2012. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, Douglass C. 1993. “Institutions and credible commitment.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 149 (1): 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pierson, Paul. 2000a. “Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, Paul. 2000b. “The limits of design: Explaining institutional origins and change.” Governance 13 (4): 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. Keith. 2003. “Artificial societies: Multi agent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory.” Sociological Methods and Research 31: 37–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. Keith, 2005. Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, Ralph D. 2003. Complexity and group processes: A radically social understanding of individuals. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, Sven, 2010. The evolution of modern states: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, Nicholas. 2007. The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. 1st ed. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Varoufakis, Yanis. 2015. The global minotaur: America, Europe and the future of the global economy. London: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum mind and social science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje. 2006. “Constructivist approaches in international relations theory: Puzzles and promises.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1939758.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Oldrich Bubak

  2. Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Henry Jacek

Authors
  1. Oldrich Bubak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry Jacek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oldrich Bubak .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bubak, O., Jacek, H. (2019). Into a New Paradigm. In: Trivialization and Public Opinion. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17925-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17925-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17924-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17925-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation