The Confused State of Complexity Economics: An Ontological Explanation

  • E. Perona
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)


‘Complexity’ ideas are becoming a hot issue in economics. Originally developed within the natural sciences, complexity theory is now believed by many to be a novel and powerful framework of thought, capable of challenging the fundamental principles sustained by mainstream economics for more than a century. One of its main advocates, David Colander (2000a:31), has written that “Complexity changes everything; well, maybe not everything, but it does change quite a bit in economics”. Also, in a recent issue of a popular scientific magazine, it is suggested that complexity ideas “are beginning to map out a radical and long-overdue revision of economic theory” (Buchanan, New Scientist, 2004:35). Indeed, the proliferation of publications, journals, summer schools, and conferences on complexity economics during the past few years can hardly pass unnoticed.


Complexity Theory Traditional Theory Complexity Idea Problematic Feature Confuse State 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amin A., Hausner J. (1997): Beyond market and hierarchy. Interactive governance and social complexity. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur B., Durlauf S., Lane D. (1997): The economy as an evolving complex system II. Perseus Books, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan M. (2004): It’s the economy, stupid. New Scientist 182:34–37Google Scholar
  4. Colander D. (2000a): Complexity and the history of economic thought. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Colander D. (2000b): The complexity vision and the teaching of economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan G. (1997): Complexity? Who ordered that? Complexity 2:56–57CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Delorme R. (1997): The foundational bearing of complexity. In: Amin A., Hausner J. (eds):, Beyond market and hierarchy: Interactive governance and social complexity. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 32–56Google Scholar
  8. Delorme R. (2001): Theorizing complexity. In: Foster J., Metcalfe J. S. (eds) Frontiers of evolutionary economics. Competition, self-organization and innovation policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Northampton, pp 80–108Google Scholar
  9. Dent E. B. 1999): Complexity science: a worldview shift. Emergence 1:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downward P. (2003): Applied economics and the critical realist critique. Routledge, London New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmonds B. (1999): Syntactic measures of complexity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester ( Scholar
  12. Edmonds B. (2001): Against: a priori theory. For: descriptively adequate computational modeling. Post-Autistic Economics Review 10:article 2 ( Scholar
  13. Elliott E., Kiel L. D. (1998): Introduction. In: Kiel L. D., Elliott E. (eds) Chaos theory in the social sciences. Foundations and applications. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  14. Fontana W., Ballati S. (1999): Complexity. Why the sudden fuss? Complexity 4:14–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox G. (1997): Reason and reality in the methodologies of economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham LymeGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey D. L., Reed M. (1998): Social science as the study of complex systems. In: Kiel L. D., Elliott E. (eds): Chaos theory in the social sciences. Foundations and applications. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 295–323Google Scholar
  17. Hayek F. A. (1967): The theory of complex phenomena. In: Hayek FA, Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Heylighen F. (1999): The growth of structural and functional complexity during evolution. In: Heylighen F., Bollen J., Riegler A. (eds) The evolution of complexity The violet book of “Einstein meets Magrite”, VUB University Press and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Brussels Dordrecht, pp 17–44Google Scholar
  19. Kilpatrick H. E. (2001): Complexity, spontaneous order, and Friedrich Hayek: are spontaneous order and complexity essentially the same thing? Complexity 6:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavoie D. (1994): Austrian models? Possibilities of evolutionary computation. In: Boettke P. J. (ed) The Elgar companion to Austrian Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 549–555Google Scholar
  21. Lawson T. (2001): Two responses to the failings of modern economics: the instrumentalist and the realist. Review of Population and Social Policy 10:155–181Google Scholar
  22. Lawson T. (2003a): Reorienting economics. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson T. (2003b): Heterodox economics: what is it? (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, Nottingham Trent University-UK)Google Scholar
  24. Lawson T. (2003c): The (confused) state of equilibrium analysis in modern economics: an (ontological) explanation. (Paper presented at the London History and Philosophy of Science Meetings, LSE-CPNSS, London-UK)Google Scholar
  25. Leijonhufvud A. (1995): Adaptive behavior, market processes and the computable approach. Revue Economique 46:1497–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lissack M. (1999): Complexity: the science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations. Emergence 1:110–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lloyd S. (1999): Complexity: plain and simple. Complexity 4:72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McIntyre L. (1998): Complexity: a philosopher’s reflections. Complexity 3:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perona E. (2004): Conceptualising complexity in economic analysis: a philosophical, including ontological, study. Ph.D. thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Potts J. (2000): The new evolutionary microeconomics. Complexity, competence and adaptive behavior. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  31. Pratten S. (2005): Economics as progress: the LSE approach to econometric modeling and Critical Realism as programmes for research. Cambridge Journal of Economics 29:179–205)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reed M., Harvey D. L. (1992): The new science and the old: complexity and realism in the social sciences. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 22:353–380Google Scholar
  33. Rosser J. B. (2004): Complexity in economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  34. Schenk K. E. (2003): Economic institutions and complexity. Structures, interactions and emergent properties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon H. (1976): How complex are complex systems? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennal Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol 1976, Issue Two: Symposia and Invited Papers, The University of Chicago Press, pp 507–522Google Scholar
  36. Simpson D. (2000): Rethinking economic behavior. How the economy really works. Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  37. Wible J. (2000): What is complexity? In: Colander D. (ed) Complexity and the history of economic thought. Routledge, London, pp 15–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Perona
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaEspain

Personalised recommendations