Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Complexity Economics: A Theoretical Review

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 12 - 27, 30.03.2021
https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.803089

Abstract

A new paradigm called the complexity theory has recently emerged. Complexity theory is concerned with the modeling and understanding of complex systems. The main reason for the emergence of this theory is the advances in computer technology. With the developments in computer technology, it has become possible to model and simulate complex systems consisting of many components on the computer. When analyzing a system, analytical method separates the system into its components and analyzes these components isolated from each other. However, interactions between components are not taken into account with this type of analysis. Therefore, the analytical method is not suitable for handling complex systems. Complexity theory has led to new insights in many scientific disciplines. Economics is one of these disciplines. There is no doubt that economies are complex systems. However, neoclassical theory tried to model economies with simple structural equations. With such models, phenomena such as heterogeneity, learning, evolution, selection, dependence on history and adaptation cannot be modeled. However, these phenomena can be modeled with agent-based models. The explanation styles of complexity theory and neoclassical theory also differ. Two important phenomena addressed in complexity economics are path dependency and positive feedback or increasing returns. Neoclassical theory assumes diminishing returns in order to make appropriate inferences. However, increasing returns in the economy are also common. Path dependence in economy expresses the determinacy of history. The aim of this study is to consider the reflection of complexity theory, which is a new paradigm, to the discipline of economics, to reveal the differences between this theory and main stream (neoclassical) theory, and to evaluate the applicability and advantages of this new theory in economics. The most important conclusion of the study is that the complexity economics is not a temporary scientific fashion and that this theory offers new tools for the analysis of economies.

References

  • Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. J. ve Pines D. (1988). The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
  • Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S. ve Lane, D. A. (1997). The Economy as an evolving complex system II. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the economy. Science, 284(5411), 107-109.
  • Arthur, W. B. (2000). Complexity and the economy. D.A. Colander (Ed.), The Complexity vision and the teaching of economics (ss. 19-28) içinde. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Bak, P. (1996). How nature works. New York: Springer.
  • Bertuglia, C. ve Vaio, V. (2005). Nonlinearity, chaos & complexity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Blume, L. E. ve Durlauf, S. N. (Ed.). (2005). The economy as an evolving complex system, III: Current perspectives and future directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bozpinar. C. (2020a). Uzun Dalgalar Teorisi çerçevesinde 2008 küresel krizi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 30 (112), 57-84. doi: 10.5455/ey.17005.
  • Bozpinar, C. (2020b). Marx öncesi Emek Değer Teorisi: Genel bir bakış. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 4 (1), 72-93.
  • Bozpinar, C. (2020c). Marx ve işsizlik: Karmaşıklık iktisadının izleri. Y. A. Unvan (Ed.), İktisadi ve idari bilimler: Teori, güncel araştırmalar ve yeni eğilimler (ss. 178-197) içinde. Karadağ: Ivpe.
  • Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.
  • Cohen, I. B. (1994). Newton and the social sciences, with special reference to economics, or, the case of the missing paradigm. P. Mirowski (Ed.), Natural Images in Economic Thought (ss. 55-90) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.
  • Colander, D. (Ed.). (2000). The complexity vision and the teaching of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Comim, F. (2000). Marshall and the role of common sense in complex systems. D. Colander (Ed.), Complexity and the History of Economic Thought (ss. 155-192) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Durlauf, S. N. (2012). Complexity, economics, and public policy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 11(1), 45-75.
  • Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Eser, R. ve Kırer, H. (2017). Mekansal iktisat ve mekansal kompleksite üzerine bir değerlendirme. Yildiz Social Science Review, 3(2), 137-156.
  • Farmer, J. D. ve Foley, D. (2009). The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 460(7256), 685-686.
  • Farrell, J. ve Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 16, 70-83.
  • Farrell, J. ve Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. The American Economic Review, 76, 940-955.
  • Fiori, S. (2009). Hayek's theory on complexity and knowledge: dichotomies, levels of analysis, and bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Methodology, 16(3), 265-285.
  • Fiori, S. (2013). Subjectivism and Explanations of the Principle: Their Relationship with Methodological Individualism and Holism in Hayek’s Theory. R. Leeson ve F. Roger (Ed.), Hayek and Behavioral Economics (pp. 263-277) içinde. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Foster, J. (2005). From simplistic to complex systems in economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (6), 873-892.
  • Foxon, T. J., Köhler, J., Michie, J. ve Oughton, C. (2013). Towards a new complexity economics for sustainability. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(1), 187-208.
  • Jakimowicz, A. (2020). The Role of Entropy in the Development of Economics. Entropy, 22(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22040452
  • Katz, M. L. ve Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
  • Katz, M. L. ve Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 822-841.
  • Keleş, E. ve Eren, E. (2014). Ajan tabanlı modelleme ve hesaplamalı iktisat. Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 11(42), 197-219.
  • Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Montgomery, M. R. (2000). Complexity theory an Austrian perspective. D. Colander (Ed.). Complexity and the history of economic thought (ss. 227-240) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Nicolis, G. ve Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems. New York: Wiley.
  • Örün, E. (2020). Kompleksite iktisadı ve ajan bazlı kompütasyonel iktisat. Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(19), 48-62.
  • Santa Fe Institute. (t.y.). Our Mission. Erişim adresi: https://www.santafe.edu/about.
  • Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 21-33.
  • Top, S., Dilek, S. ve Çolakoğlu, N. (2011). Perceptions of network effects: Positive or negative externalities? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1574-1584.
  • Ulusoy, T. (2017). Ekonofizik ve Finansal Entropi. Kastamonu University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences Faculty, 18(1), 138–149.
  • Ünal, B. (2018). Comparison of a fuzzy-logic based bidding strategy with other strategies in dynamic double auctions. Turkish Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 9(2), 1-10.
  • Ünal, B. ve Aladağ, Ç. H. (2019). Fuzzy logic-based bidding strategies in dynamic double auctions. Kybernetes, 48(3), 612-35.
  • Ünal, B. (2020). Karmaşıklık iktisadı ve benzetim. Y. A. Unvan (Ed.), İktisadi ve idari bilimler: Teori, güncel araştırmalar ve yeni eğilimler (ss. 110-126) içinde. Karadağ: Ivpe.
  • Wible, J. (2000). What is complexity. D.A. Colander (Ed.), The complexity vision and the teaching of economics (ss. 86-115) içinde. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Karmaşıklık İktisadı: Teorik Bir İnceleme

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 12 - 27, 30.03.2021
https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.803089

Abstract

Yakın zamanda karmaşıklık teorisi olarak adlandırılan yeni bir paradigma ortaya çıkmıştır. Karmaşıklık teorisi karmaşık sistemlerin modellenmesi ve anlaşılması ile ilgilenmektedir. Bu teorinin ortaya çıkışının başlıca sebebi bilgisayar teknolojisindeki gelişmelerdir. Bilgisayar teknolojisindeki gelişmeler sayesinde çok sayıda bileşenden oluşan karmaşık sistemlerin bilgisayarda ajan tabanlı olarak modellenmesi ve benzetimlerinin yapılması mümkün hale gelmiştir. Analitik yöntem bir sistemi analiz ederken o sistemi bileşenlerine ayırmakta ve bu bileşenleri birbirinden izole olarak analiz etmektedir. Ancak bu tür bir analizle bileşenler arasındaki etkileşimler dikkate alınmamaktadır. Bu yüzden analitik yöntem karmaşık sistemlerin ele alınması için uygun değildir. Karmaşıklık teorisi birçok bilimsel disiplinde yeni anlayışlara yol açmıştır. İktisat da bu bilimlerden biridir. Ekonomik yapıların karmaşık sistemler olduğuna dair bir şüphe bulunmamaktadır. Buna karşın neoklasik teori ekonomik yapıları basit yapısal denklemlerle modellemeye çalışmıştır. Ancak bu tür modellerle heterojenlik, öğrenme, evrim, seçilim, tarihe bağımlılık ve uyarlama gibi olgular modellenememektedir. Buna karşın ajan tabanlı modellerle bu olgular modellenebilmektedir. Karmaşıklık teorisi ile neoklasik teorinin ekonomik yapıları açıklama tarzları da farklılık göstermektedir. Karmaşıklık iktisadında iki önemli olgu pozitif geribildirimler veya artan getiriler ile patika bağımlılığıdır. Neoklasik teori uygun çıkarımlarda bulunabilmek için azalan getirileri varsaymaktadır. Ancak ekonomide artan getirilere de sıkça rastlanmaktadır. Ekonomide patika bağımlılığı ise tarihin belirleyiciliğini ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışmada yeni bir paradigma olan karmaşıklık teorisinin ekonomi disiplinine yansıması ele alınarak bu teori ile anaakım iktisadi teori (neoklasik teori) arasındaki farklılıkların ortaya koyulması, ekonomi biliminde uygulanabilirliği ve avantajlarının genel olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın en önemli sonucu, karmaşıklık iktisadının geçici bir bilimsel bir moda olmadığı ve bu teorinin ekonominin analizinde yeni araçlar sunduğudur.

References

  • Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. J. ve Pines D. (1988). The Economy as an Evolving Complex System. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
  • Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S. ve Lane, D. A. (1997). The Economy as an evolving complex system II. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the economy. Science, 284(5411), 107-109.
  • Arthur, W. B. (2000). Complexity and the economy. D.A. Colander (Ed.), The Complexity vision and the teaching of economics (ss. 19-28) içinde. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Bak, P. (1996). How nature works. New York: Springer.
  • Bertuglia, C. ve Vaio, V. (2005). Nonlinearity, chaos & complexity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Blume, L. E. ve Durlauf, S. N. (Ed.). (2005). The economy as an evolving complex system, III: Current perspectives and future directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bozpinar. C. (2020a). Uzun Dalgalar Teorisi çerçevesinde 2008 küresel krizi. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 30 (112), 57-84. doi: 10.5455/ey.17005.
  • Bozpinar, C. (2020b). Marx öncesi Emek Değer Teorisi: Genel bir bakış. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 4 (1), 72-93.
  • Bozpinar, C. (2020c). Marx ve işsizlik: Karmaşıklık iktisadının izleri. Y. A. Unvan (Ed.), İktisadi ve idari bilimler: Teori, güncel araştırmalar ve yeni eğilimler (ss. 178-197) içinde. Karadağ: Ivpe.
  • Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.
  • Cohen, I. B. (1994). Newton and the social sciences, with special reference to economics, or, the case of the missing paradigm. P. Mirowski (Ed.), Natural Images in Economic Thought (ss. 55-90) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.
  • Colander, D. (Ed.). (2000). The complexity vision and the teaching of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Comim, F. (2000). Marshall and the role of common sense in complex systems. D. Colander (Ed.), Complexity and the History of Economic Thought (ss. 155-192) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Durlauf, S. N. (2012). Complexity, economics, and public policy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 11(1), 45-75.
  • Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Eser, R. ve Kırer, H. (2017). Mekansal iktisat ve mekansal kompleksite üzerine bir değerlendirme. Yildiz Social Science Review, 3(2), 137-156.
  • Farmer, J. D. ve Foley, D. (2009). The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 460(7256), 685-686.
  • Farrell, J. ve Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 16, 70-83.
  • Farrell, J. ve Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. The American Economic Review, 76, 940-955.
  • Fiori, S. (2009). Hayek's theory on complexity and knowledge: dichotomies, levels of analysis, and bounded rationality. Journal of Economic Methodology, 16(3), 265-285.
  • Fiori, S. (2013). Subjectivism and Explanations of the Principle: Their Relationship with Methodological Individualism and Holism in Hayek’s Theory. R. Leeson ve F. Roger (Ed.), Hayek and Behavioral Economics (pp. 263-277) içinde. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Foster, J. (2005). From simplistic to complex systems in economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (6), 873-892.
  • Foxon, T. J., Köhler, J., Michie, J. ve Oughton, C. (2013). Towards a new complexity economics for sustainability. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(1), 187-208.
  • Jakimowicz, A. (2020). The Role of Entropy in the Development of Economics. Entropy, 22(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22040452
  • Katz, M. L. ve Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
  • Katz, M. L. ve Shapiro, C. (1986). Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 822-841.
  • Keleş, E. ve Eren, E. (2014). Ajan tabanlı modelleme ve hesaplamalı iktisat. Marmara Üniversitesi Öneri Dergisi, 11(42), 197-219.
  • Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Montgomery, M. R. (2000). Complexity theory an Austrian perspective. D. Colander (Ed.). Complexity and the history of economic thought (ss. 227-240) içinde. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Nicolis, G. ve Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems. New York: Wiley.
  • Örün, E. (2020). Kompleksite iktisadı ve ajan bazlı kompütasyonel iktisat. Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(19), 48-62.
  • Santa Fe Institute. (t.y.). Our Mission. Erişim adresi: https://www.santafe.edu/about.
  • Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 21-33.
  • Top, S., Dilek, S. ve Çolakoğlu, N. (2011). Perceptions of network effects: Positive or negative externalities? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1574-1584.
  • Ulusoy, T. (2017). Ekonofizik ve Finansal Entropi. Kastamonu University Journal of Economics & Administrative Sciences Faculty, 18(1), 138–149.
  • Ünal, B. (2018). Comparison of a fuzzy-logic based bidding strategy with other strategies in dynamic double auctions. Turkish Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 9(2), 1-10.
  • Ünal, B. ve Aladağ, Ç. H. (2019). Fuzzy logic-based bidding strategies in dynamic double auctions. Kybernetes, 48(3), 612-35.
  • Ünal, B. (2020). Karmaşıklık iktisadı ve benzetim. Y. A. Unvan (Ed.), İktisadi ve idari bilimler: Teori, güncel araştırmalar ve yeni eğilimler (ss. 110-126) içinde. Karadağ: Ivpe.
  • Wible, J. (2000). What is complexity. D.A. Colander (Ed.), The complexity vision and the teaching of economics (ss. 86-115) içinde. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
There are 41 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Baki Ünal 0000-0001-9154-0931

Publication Date March 30, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Ünal, B. (2021). Karmaşıklık İktisadı: Teorik Bir İnceleme. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.803089

Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).