|
on Heterodox Microeconomics |
| By: | W. Brian Arthur |
| Abstract: | This paper provides a logical framework for complexity economics. Complexity economics builds from the proposition that the economy is not necessarily in equilibrium: economic agents (firms, consumers, investors) constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. This further changes the outcome, which requires them to adjust afresh. Agents thus live in a world where their beliefs and strategies are constantly being “tested” for survival within an outcome or “ecology” these beliefs and strategies together create. Economics has largely avoided this nonequilibrium view in the past, but if we allow it, we see patterns or phenomena not visible to equilibrium analysis. These emerge probabilistically, last for some time and dissipate, and they correspond to complex structures in other fields. We also see the economy not as something given and existing but forming from a constantly developing set of technological innovations, institutions, and arrangements that draw forth further innovations, institutions and arrangements. Complexity economics sees the economy as in motion, perpetually “computing” itself— perpetually constructing itself anew. Where equilibrium economics emphasizes order, determinacy, deduction, and stasis, complexity economics emphasizes contingency, indeterminacy, sense-making, and openness to change. In this framework time, in the sense of real historical time, becomes important, and a solution is no longer necessarily a set of mathematical conditions but a pattern, a set of emergent phenomena, a set of changes that may induce further changes, a set of existing entities creating novel entities. Equilibrium economics is a special case of nonequilibrium and hence complexity economics, therefore complexity economics is economics done in a more general way. It shows us an economy perpetually inventing itself, creating novel structures and possibilities for exploitation, and perpetually open to response. |
| Date: | 2013–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:thk:rnotes:33&r=hme |
| By: | Dirk Helbing |
| Abstract: | Despite all our great advances in science, technology and financial innovations, many societies today are struggling with a financial, economic and public spending crisis, over-regulation, and mass unemployment, as well as lack of sustain- ability and innovation. Can we still rely on conventional economic thinking or do we need a new approach? Is our economic system undergoing a fundamental transformation? Are our theories still doing a good job with just a few exceptions, or do they work only for “good weather” but not for “market storms”? Can we fix existing theories by adapting them a bit, or do we need a fundamentally different approach? These are the kind of questions that will be addressed in this paper. I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decision-making and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “net- worked minds.” Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo economicus.” I show that the “homo economicus” and the “homo so- cialis” imply a different kind of dynamics and distinct aggregate outcomes. There- fore, next to the traditional economics for the “homo economicus” (“economics 1.0”), a complementary theory must be developed for the “homo socialis.” This economic theory might be called “economics 2.0” or “socionomics.” The names are justified, because the Web 2.0 is currently promoting a transition to a new market organization, which benefits from social media platforms and could be character- ized as “participatory market society.” To thrive, the “homo socialis” requires suit- able institutional settings such a particular kinds of reputation systems, which will be sketched in this paper. I also propose a new kind of money, so-called “qualified money,” which may overcome some of the problems of our current financial system. In summary, I discuss the economic literature from a new perspective and argue that this offers the basis for a different theoretical framework. This opens the door for a new economic thinking and a novel research field, which focuses on the effects, implications, and institutional requirements for global-scale network inter- actions and highly interdependent decisions. |
| Date: | 2013–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:thk:rnotes:32&r=hme |
| By: | Ho Fai Chan; Bruno S. Frey; Jana Gallus; Markus Schaffner; Benno Torgler; Stephen Whyte |
| Abstract: | The external influence of scholarly activity has to date been measured primarily in terms of publications and citations, metrics that also dominate the promotion and grant processes. Yet the array of scholarly activities visible to the outside world are far more extensive and recently developed technologies allow broader and more accurate measurement of their influence on the wider societal discourse. Accordingly we analyze the relation between the internal and external influences of 723 top economics scholars using the number of pages indexed by Google and Bing as a measure of their external influence. Although the correlation between internal and external influence is low overall, it is highest among recipients of major key awards such as the Nobel Prize or John Bates Clark medal, and particularly strong for those ranked among the top 100 researchers. |
| Keywords: | Academia, Scholarly Importance, Role of Economics, Social Importance of Economists, External and Internal Influence, Academic Performance, Awards. |
| JEL: | A11 A13 Z18 Z19 |
| Date: | 2013–09–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:qut:qubewp:wp020&r=hme |
| By: | Zsolt Katona (Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley) |
| Abstract: | This paper studies the competition between firms for influencers in a network. Firms spend effort to convince influencers to recommend their products. The analysis identifies the offensive and defensive roles of spending on influencers. The value of an influencer only depends on the in-degree distribution of the influence network. Influencers who exclusively cover a high number of consumers are more valuable to firms than those who mostly cover consumers also covered by other influencers. Firm profits are highest when there are many consumers with a very low or with very high in-degree. Consumers with an intermediate level of in-degree contribute negatively to profits and high in-degree consumers increase profits when market competition is not intense. Prices are generally lower when consumers are covered by many influencers, however, firms are not always worse off with lower prices. The nature of consumer response to recommendations makes an important difference. When first impressions dominate, firm profits for dense networks are higher, but when recommendations have a cumulative influence profits are reduced as the network becomes dense. |
| Keywords: | Social Networks, Influencers, Competition |
| JEL: | M31 C72 D44 |
| Date: | 2013–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:net:wpaper:1306&r=hme |
| By: | Julie A. Nelson |
| Abstract: | Economic discourse—or the lack of it—about fear is gendered on at least three fronts. First, while masculine-associated notions of reason and mind have historically been prioritized in mainstream economics, fear—along with other emotions and embodiment—has tended to be culturally associated with femininity. Research on cognitive "gender schema," then, may at least partly explain the near absence of discussions of fear within economic research. Second, in the rare cases where fear is discussed in the contemporary economics literature, there is a tendency to (overly-)strongly associate it with women. Finally, historians and philosophers of science have suggested that the failure to consider the full range of human emotions and experience may be itself rooted in fear: a fear of the feminine. This aversion to discussing fear—especially fear as experienced by men—may contribute to serious problems, especially in regard to financial market instability and ecological threats. |
| Keywords: | cognitive schema, fear, gender, risk aversion, stereotypes |
| Date: | 2013–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mab:wpaper:17&r=hme |
| By: | Michaela Pinho (NIMA, Universidade do Minho) |
| Abstract: | This paper addresses the ethical values surrounding policies of rationing scarce healthcare resources taken essentially at a micro level. Through quantitative and qualitative data from 200 college students, we explore the public’s attitudes and motivations concerning personal characteristics of patients at the moment of establishing priorities between them and their view on its direct participation in deciding whom to treat. Findings suggest that (i) individuals accept the inclusion of social criteria in decision making process although for reasons that do not seek so much the promotion of fairness but rather to ensure efficiency, understood here as guarantor of maximizing the welfare of a majority and (ii) individuals, even defended an intervention of the population in issues concerning rationing healthcare decisions and do not review them in the role of deciding between patients. |
| Keywords: | Equity, Microallocation, Ethical judgments |
| Date: | 2013–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nim:nimawp:51/2013&r=hme |
| By: | Dammert, Ana C. (Carleton University); Ural Marchand, Beyza (University of Alberta, Department of Economics) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the impact of privatization on gender discrimination in China across firms with different technology intensities. Using a comprehensive firm-level survey, the paper identifies gender wage-productivity differentials by directly estimating the relative productivity levels of workers from the production function of firms. The panel structure of the survey is taken advantage of by following firms that were fully state-owned in the initial year, and distinguishing them from firms that were later privatized. The main results show that privatization was associated with an increase in relative productivity of female workers in high technology industries, and a reduction in relative productivity of female workers in low technology industries. Time varying coefficient results suggest that the improvements in gender outcomes in high technology industries may not be maintained in the long run as the relative wage and productivity ratios tend to deteriorate, potentially due to low supply of highly educated female workers. At the same time, outcomes in privatized low technology industries tend to improve over time, lowering the wage and productivity gaps between male and female workers. |
| Keywords: | Discrimination; Gender; Privatization; Technology |
| JEL: | J16 J31 P20 |
| Date: | 2013–09–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ris:albaec:2013_012&r=hme |
| By: | Aspiazu, Eliana |
| Abstract: | En esta ponencia se presenta una breve reseña de las discusiones actuales en la literatura nacional e internacional sobre los avances en materia de participación sindical femenina. También se esbozan los principales argumentos sobre las dificultades que enfrenta la inclusión de la problemática de género en las organizaciones sindicales y en las unidades de negociación colectiva. Finalmente, se expone un breve estado de situación del sindicalismo en Argentina en relación con los temas analizados. |
| Keywords: | Sindicalismo; Género; Igualdad de Oportunidades; |
| Date: | 2013–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nmp:nuland:1834&r=hme |