IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v54y2020i1d10.1007_s11135-019-00844-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On measuring complexity in a post-industrial economy: the ecosystem’s approach

Author

Listed:
  • Inga Ivanova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE))

  • Nataliya Smorodinskaya

    (Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

  • Loet Leydesdorff

    (University of Amsterdam)

Abstract

We propose the Modified Economic Complexity Index (MECI) as a possible refinement to two relevant complexity measures: the Economic Complexity index (ECI) and the Fitness and Complexity index (FCI). Both ECI and FCI are used for the evaluation of competitive advantages and growth potentials of countries. ECI and FCI assume bipartite country-network data, whereas MECI provides an ecosystem-based design using technology as a third dimension. We test the three complexity measures with respect to Balassa’s Revealed Comparative Advantage index (RCA) and the newly introduced Revealed Effectiveness Advantage index (REA) using empirical data for 41 countries. Regression analysis shows that the predictive power of the three measures with respect to GDP per capita growth improves using the REA index instead of RCA. MECI improves the prediction when compared with ECI and FCI. However, the results for the three measures converge in terms of initial diversity scores and GDP per capita correlation in the case of using the REA index. MECI is based on an eco-system’s approach and can therefore be further developed into simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Inga Ivanova & Nataliya Smorodinskaya & Loet Leydesdorff, 2020. "On measuring complexity in a post-industrial economy: the ecosystem’s approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 197-212, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:54:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-019-00844-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-019-00844-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-019-00844-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-019-00844-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    2. John H. Miller & Scott E. Page, 2007. "Social Science in Between, from Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life," Introductory Chapters, in: Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life, Princeton University Press.
    3. Kemp-Benedict, Eric, 2014. "An interpretation and critique of the Method of Reflections," MPRA Paper 60705, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), 2011. "Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13391.
    5. Ken Warwick & Alistair Nolan, 2014. "Evaluation of Industrial Policy: Methodological Issues and Policy Lessons," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 16, OECD Publishing.
    6. John H. Miller & Scott E. Page, 2007. "Complexity in Social Worlds, from Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life," Introductory Chapters, in: Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life, Princeton University Press.
    7. Richard Florida, 2002. "Bohemia and economic geography," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 55-71, January.
    8. Cesar A. Hidalgo & Ricardo Hausmann, 2009. "The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity," Papers 0909.3890, arXiv.org.
    9. Guzmán Ourens, 2012. "Can the Method of Re?ections help predict future growth?," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 1712, Department of Economics - dECON.
    10. César Hidalgo & Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Mercedes Delgado & Maryann Feldma & Koen Frenken & Edward Glaeser & Canfei He & Dieter F. Kogler & Andrea Morrison & Frank Neffke & David Rigby, 2018. "The Principle of Relatedness," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1830, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2018.
    11. Russell, Martha G. & Smorodinskaya, Nataliya V., 2018. "Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 114-131.
    12. Tacchella, A. & Cristelli, M. & Caldarelli, G. & Gabrielli, A. & Pietronero, L., 2013. "Economic complexity: Conceptual grounding of a new metrics for global competitiveness," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1683-1691.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sudeshna Ghosh & Buhari Doğan & Muhlis Can & Muhammad Ibrahim Shah & Nicholas Apergis, 2023. "Does economic structure matter for income inequality?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2507-2527, June.
    2. Marina V. Evseeva, 2020. "Technological differentiation in the development of the Ural macroregion’s subjects," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 21(3), pages 132-157, October.
    3. Travis J. Lybbert & Mingzhi Xu, 2022. "Innovation‐adjusted economic complexity and growth: Do patent flows reveal enhanced economic capabilities?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 442-483, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inga Ivanova, 2022. "The relation between complexity and synergy in the case of China: different ways of predicting GDP growth in a complex and adaptive system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 195-215, February.
    2. Ivanova, Inga & Strand, Øivind & Kushnir, Duncan & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2017. "Economic and technological complexity: A model study of indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 77-89.
    3. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    4. Michael Rothgang & Jochen Dehio & Bernhard Lageman, 2019. "Analysing the effects of cluster policy: What can we learn from the German leading-edge cluster competition?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1673-1697, December.
    5. Wolfram Elsner, 2019. "Policy and state in complexity economics," Chapters, in: Nikolaos Karagiannis & John E. King (ed.), A Modern Guide to State Intervention, chapter 1, pages 13-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Penny Mealy & Diane Coyle, 2022. "To them that hath: economic complexity and local industrial strategy in the UK," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(2), pages 358-377, April.
    7. Bustos, Sebastián & Yıldırım, Muhammed A., 2022. "Production Ability and economic growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    8. Claudius Gräbner & Anna Hornykewycz, 2022. "Capability accumulation and product innovation: an agent-based perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 87-121, January.
    9. Abdullah Almaatouq, 2016. "Complex Systems and a Computational Social Science Perspective on the Labor Market," Papers 1606.08562, arXiv.org.
    10. Gómez Zaldívar Manuel de Jesús & Chávez Juan Carlos & Mosqueda Chávez Marco Tulio, 2016. "Economic Complexity and Regional Growth Performance, Evidence From the Mexican Economy," Working Papers 2016-17, Banco de México.
    11. Ming-Yang Zhou & Xiao-Yu Li & Wen-Man Xiong & Hao Liao, 2018. "Quantifying the Robustness of Countries’ Competitiveness by Network-Based Methods," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, December.
    12. Hausmann, Ricardo & Stock, Daniel P. & Yıldırım, Muhammed A., 2022. "Implied comparative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    13. Andres Gomez-Lievano, 2018. "Methods and Concepts in Economic Complexity," Papers 1809.10781, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2018.
    14. Kito, Tomomi & New, Steve & Reed-Tsochas, Felix, 2018. "Disentangling the complexity of supply relationship formations: Firm product diversification and product ubiquity in the Japanese car industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 159-168.
    15. Natera, Jose Miguel & Castellacci, Fulvio, 2021. "Transformational complexity, systemic complexity and economic development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    16. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    17. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    18. Citera, Emanuele & Sau, Lino, 2019. "Complexity, Conventions and Instability: the role of monetary policy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201924, University of Turin.
    19. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Andrea Flori & Fabrizio Lillo & Fabio Pammolli & Alessandro Spelta, 2021. "Better to stay apart: asset commonality, bipartite network centrality, and investment strategies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 299(1), pages 177-213, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:54:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-019-00844-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.