Just to be clear, this is the Brian Arthur paper.
From: futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca [mailto:futurework-boun...@lists.uwaterloo.ca] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:40 AM To: Futurework list Subject: [Futurework] comment on Arthur paper from an expert Economics[ <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relational_order_theories&action =edit§ion=11> edit source | <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relational_order_theories&veacti on=edit§ion=11> editbeta] Albert-Laslo Barabasi, Igor Matutinovic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_order_theories#cite_note-21> [21] and others have suggested that economic systems can fruitfully be seen as network phenomena generated by non-equilibrium forces. At this time there is a visible attempt to re-cast the foundations of the economics discipline in the terms of non-equilibrium dynamics and network effects, led by researchers belonging to the school of evolutionary and institutional economics (Jason Potts), and ecological economics (Faber et al.). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_order_theories#cite_note-22> [22] The <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics> Complexity economics article in this Encyclopedia elaborates on this and related developments. above from wikipedia Begin forwarded message: From: "Matutinovic, Igor (GfK)" <igor.matutino...@gfk.com> Date: September 10, 2013 6:29:42 AM EDT To: Steve Kurtz <kur...@ncf.ca> Steve, Thank you for pointing this latest work of Arthur! In a certain sense, talking about equilibrium economics from a heterodox perspective (SFI) is, in my opinion, outdated today. We have already complete theoretical framework of nonequilibrium economic in Jason Pott's book "The New Evolutionary Microeconomics: Complexity, Competence and Adaptive Behaviour". Saying that "Equilibrium economics is a special case of nonequilibrium economics" is methodological euphemism because we do not find this "special case" anywhere in reality. Potts shows that equilibrium economics has been constructed on wrong methodological premises like field theory of agent's connections and interactions and false psychological premises of human behavior. This has been all known for long time already.. Arthurs "different framework" does not include natural constraints - from resources and energy to climate stability and biodiversity, which all underpin functioning of economic systems. Any theorizing about complexity economics is necessarily incomplete without these. So I would like to see from Arthur a step in that direction and leaving behind any references to equilibrium . The best Igor
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@lists.uwaterloo.ca https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
