The Moral Science of Heterogeneous Economic Interaction in Face of Complexity



The principles of political economy, particularly those of the Anglo-Saxon origin, were kinds of utilitarian-based moral philosophy. In this sense, the idea of individualistic rational utility is the essential ontological factor of empiricism to generate the source of all human behaviour in the economic system. Thus, many economists have so far been inclined to indulge in an individualistic utility-based prediction, almost everywhere that human nature matters. While the Schumpeterian epistemological view of the continental idealisms is construed as the triangular theoretical layers of statics, dynamics, and sociodynamics. Without any modification of the ontological–epistemological constructs in economics, we can no longer capture the essence of the rapidly salient evolution of complex economic systems in the modern times.


Utility Function Transition Rate Master Equation Multinomial Logit Model Sequential Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akiyama E, Aruka Y (2006) Evolution of reciprocal cooperation in the Avatamsaka game. In: Namatame A, Kaizoji T, Aruka Y (eds) The complex networks of economic interactions: essays in agent-based economics and econophysics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 307–320Google Scholar
  2. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1992) Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoki M (2002) Modeling aggregate behavior and fluctuations in economics: stochastic views of interacting agents. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoki M, Yoshikawa H (2006) Reconstructing macroeconomics: a perspective from statistical physics and combinatorial stochastic processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthur WB (1996) Increasing returns and the new world of business. Harvard Bus Rev 74:100–109Google Scholar
  6. Aruka Y (2001) Avatamsaka game structure and experiment on the Web. In: Aruka Y (ed) Evolutionary controversies in economics. Springer, Tokyo, pp 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aruka Y (2003) The complex adaptive processes in economics by heterogeneous interacting agents. In: Russian Academy of Sciences: Institute of Economics and Central Economics and Mathematics Institute (ed) Economic transformation and evolutionary theory of J. Schumpeter. Institute of economics RAS, Moscow, pp 265–285Google Scholar
  8. Aruka Y (2006) Evolution der Sittenlehre über Wirtschaftliche Rationalität im Komplexen Sozialsystem. Symposium zur Gründung einer Deutsch-Japanischen Akadmie für integrative WissenschaftGoogle Scholar
  9. Asano Y (1998) Mozi. Kodansha, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  10. Bierlaire M (1997) Discrete choice models, (mimeo) (
  11. Bowles S, Gintis H (2005) Can self-interest explain cooperation? Evol Inst Econ Rev 2(1):21–41Google Scholar
  12. Frank R, Cook P (1995) The winner-take-all society. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Helbing D (1995) Quantitative sociodynamics: stochastic methods and models of social interaction processes. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreps DM (1990) A course in microeconomic theory. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Luce R (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Mainzer K (2005) Was sind komplexe Systeme? In: Symposium zur Gründung einer Deutsch-Japanischen Akadmie für integrative Wissenschaft, J.H. Röll Verlag, pp 37–77Google Scholar
  17. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Poser H (2005) The prediction problems in the complex sciences, in complexity and integrative science. Koyo-Shobo, Kyoto, pp 3–26 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  19. Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weidlich W (2006) Sociodynamics: a systematic approach to mathematical modeling in the social sciences. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam (The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group). [Reprinted by Taylor and Francis (2002); Paper edition, Dover Publications (2006); Japanese translation, Morikita Shuppan (2007)]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of CommerceChuo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations