Toward a Productive Interaction Between Simulations and Theory in Economic Science

  • Yoshinori Shiozawa


A productive interaction between simulation and theory is required. This is not a simple appeal for a new collaboration. A paradigm change depends on it. More than 30 years have passed since everybody talked about paradigm change in economics. But no such thing occurred. In 1907’s, necessity was evident but no way was indicated for the change. Arrival of agent based simulation may change the situation. It may break the long stagnation of economics and may produce a long wanted paradigm change. For this to happen, a good productive interaction between simulation and theory is necessary. The precondition to this collaboration is to conceive the real problems which lie at the base of economic science.


General Equilibrium Rational Expectation Productive Interaction Neoclassical Economic Trade Theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buchanan, James M., & Yong J. Yoon, 1994, The Return to Increasing Returns, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clower, R., 1975, “Reflections on the Keynesian Perplex,” Zeitschrift fur Nationalokonomie 35, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gaffeo, E., M. Catalano, F. Clementi, D. Delli Gatti, M. Gallegati, and A. Russo, 2006 “Reflections on Modern Macroeconomics: Can We Travel Along a Safer Road?”, a paper presented at 2nd Polish Symposium on Econo-and Sociophysics, Crakow, 21–22 April, 2006. To be published in Acta Phys. Pol. B. Available at URLGoogle Scholar
  4. Hicks, J.R., 1974, The Crisis in Keynesian Economics, Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, H.G., 1974, “The Current and Perspective state of Economics”, American Economic Papers, 1–27.Google Scholar
  6. Kaldor, N., 1972, “The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics,” Economic Journal, 82, 1237–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kornai, Janos, 1971, Anti-Equilibrium: on Economic Systems Theory and the Tasks of Research, Amsterdam: North Holland.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Leijonhufvud, A., 1973, “Life among the Econ,” Western Economic Journal, 11, 327–337.Google Scholar
  9. Leontief, W.W., 1971, “Theoretical Assumptions and Noobservable Facts,” American Economic Review, 61, 1–7.Google Scholar
  10. Nakajima, Yoshihiro (Ed.),2006, U-Mart, A pamphlet issued by the U-Mart Project. Available at URL.Google Scholar
  11. Phelps Brown, E.H., 1972, “The Underdevelppment of Economiocs,” Economic Journal, 82, 9–20.Google Scholar
  12. Robinson J., 1974a, “The Second Crisis of Economic Theory,” American Economic Review, 64, 1–10.Google Scholar
  13. Robinson J., 1974b, History versus Equilibrium, London Thames Polytechnic. Reprinted in J. Robinson, Contributions to Modern Economics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 126-36.Google Scholar
  14. Shiozawa, Yoshinori, 1989, “The Primacy of Stationarity,” Osaka City University Economic Review, 24(1), pp..Google Scholar
  15. Shiozawa, Yoshinori,2004, “Evolutionary Economics in the 21st Century: A Manifest”, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 1(1), 5–47.Google Scholar
  16. Shubik, M., 1970, “A Curmudgeon’s Guide to Macroeconomics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 8, 405–434.Google Scholar
  17. Ward, B., 1972, What’s Wrong with Economics, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Weaver, W. 1948, “Science and complexity”, American Scientist, 36, 536–544.Google Scholar
  19. Worwick, G.D.N., 1972, “Is Progress in Economic Science Possible?”, Economic Journal, 82, 7–86.Google Scholar
  20. Yang, Xiaokai, Wenli Cheng, Heling Shi and Christis G. Tombazos (Eds.),2005, an Inframarginal Approach to Trade Theory, Increasing Returns and Inframarginal Economics, Vol.1, Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshinori Shiozawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School for Creative CitiesOsaka City UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations