Keynes, Hayek and Complexity

  • Paul Ormerod
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)


In the spirit of the overall topic of the conference, in this paper I consider the extent to which economic theory includes elements of the complex systems approach. I am setting to one side here the developments over the past decade in applying complex systems analysis to economic problems. This is not because this recent work is not important. It most certainly is. But I want to argue that there is a very distinct tradition of what we would now describe as a complex systems approach in the works of two of the greatest economists of the 20th century. There is of course a dominant intellectual paradigm within economics, that known as ‘neo-classical’economics. This paradigm is by no means an empty box, and is undoubtedly useful in helping to understand how some aspects of the social and economic worlds work. But even in its heyday, neo-classical economics never succeeded by its empirical success in driving out completely other theoretical approaches, for its success was simply not sufficient to do so. Much more importantly, economics over the past twenty or thirty years has become in an increasing state of flux.


Business Cycle Individual Agent General Equilibrium Conventional Theory Great Economist 
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. 1.
    Arrow, K.J. and Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica 22, 265–90.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arthur, W.B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events. Economic Journal 99, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cottrell, A. (1994). Hayeks Early Cycle Theory Re-Examined. Cambridge Journal of Economics 18, 197212.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Follmer, H. (1974). Random Economies with Many Interacting Agents’. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1, 51–62.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirman, A. (1993). Ants, Rationality and Recruitment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108, 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newbery, D.M. and J.E. Stiglitz (1982). Optimal Commodity Stock-Piling Rules. Oxford Economic Papers 34(3), November, 403–27.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayek, F.A. (1937), Economics and Knowledge. Economica 4, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lucas, R. E. (1977). Understanding Business Cycles, in Brunner, K. and Meltzer, A. (eds.) Stabilization of the Domestic and International Economy, Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maddison, A. (1991). Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ormerod, P. and Mounfield, C. (2000). Random Matrix Theory and the Failure of Macro-economic Forecasting. Physica A 280, 497–504.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pigou, A.C. (1943). The Classical Stationary State. Economic Journal 53, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silvestre, J. (1993). The Market-Power Foundations of Macroeconomic Policy. Journal of Economic Literature 31, 105–141.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sraffa, P. (1932). Dr Hayek on Money and Capital’. Economic Journal 42, 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Ormerod
    • 1
  1. 1.Volterra ConsultingLondonUK

Personalised recommendations