• Oldrich BubakEmail author
  • Henry Jacek


Whether complexity is a new paradigm and whether we are amidst of a complexity shift is subject to debates, not the least due to the varied conceptions of what constitutes a paradigm and what change entails. Nevertheless, if considered at a meta-theoretical level, embracing the new worldview becomes a significant departure from the established assumptions on knowledge and causality. And it offers much promise to transform not only the way we do science, or make policy, but, with time, also our discourse. The chapter maps the various dimensions of the new paradigm and explores its potential implications. How can we understand such a shift? What are its promises? are the questions it seeks to explore.


  1. Allen, Peter. 2003. “Knowledge, ignorance and the evolution of complex systems.” In Frontiers of evolutionary economics: Competition, self-organization, and innovation policy, edited by John Foster and J. Stanley Metcalfe. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, W. Brian. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, Robert. 2014. “Facebook reveals news feed experiment to control emotions.” The Guardian, June 30.
  4. Colander, David C., and Roland Kupers. 2014. Complexity and the art of public policy: Solving society’s problems from the bottom up. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. 2013. International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Helbing, Dirk. 2015. Thinking ahead—Essays on big data, digital revolution, and participatory market society. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Helbing, Dirk, and Alan Kirman. 2013. Rethinking economics using complexity theory. Real-World Economics Review 2013 (64): 23–52.Google Scholar
  9. Helbing, Dirk, and Stefano Balietti. 2010. “Fundamental and real-world challenges in economics.” Science and Culture 76 (9–10).
  10. Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2004. Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hutcheon, Pat Duffy. 1996. Leaving the cave: Evolutionary naturalism in social-scientific thought. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Kupers, Roland. 2014. The complexity frame for policy and management: Introductory tome. PhD diss.
  14. Lemons, John and Donald A. Brown. 1995. “The role of science in sustainable development and environmental protection decisionmaking.” In idem. Sustainable development: Science, ethics, and public policy, 11–38. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linstone, Harold A. 1999. Complexity science: Implications for forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 62: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markose, Sheri M. 2005. Computability and evolutionary complexity: Markets as complex adaptive systems (CAS). The Economic Journal 115 (504): F159–F192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2): 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2012. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nisbett, Richard. 2003. The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Richardson, Kurt. 2002. “Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality: Some further remarks.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5 (2): 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Richardson, Kurt. 2007. “Complex systems thinking and its implications for policy analysis.” In Handbook of decision making: Public administration and public policy, edited by Göktuğ Morçöl. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  23. Romer, Paul. 2012. “Process, responsibility, and Myron’s Law.” In In the wake of the crisis: Leading economists reassess economic policy, edited by Olivier Blanchard, David Romer, Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Roose, Kevin. 2017. “Forget Washington: Facebook’s problems abroad are far more disturbing.” The New York Times, October 29.
  25. Roose, Kevin, Cecilia Kang, and Sheera Frenkel. 2018. “Zuckerberg gets a Crash Course in Charm: Will congress care?” The New York Times, April 8.
  26. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2005. Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tiku, Nitasha. 2017. “Get ready for the next big privacy backlash against Facebook.” Wired, May 21.
  28. Zuckerberg, Mark. 2012. “Founder’s letter.” Facebook.

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