IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Can neoclassical economics handle complexity? The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic

Listed author(s):
  • Fontana, Magda

This paper is essentially a rebuttal of the view that neoclassical economics can handle complexity. I have coined the locution 'oil spot dynamic' to denote the neoclassical ability to subsume each and every new perspective. The main part of the paper is devoted to showing why the oil spot dynamic cannot work with the complexity approach, which is seen as a coherent stand-alone research program that stems from the SFI Economics Program and manifests itself with different nuances. The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic is relevant in this period, in which economists are beginning to realize that the Neoclassical Samuelsonian Paradigm no longer represents the common language of their profession. The spread of the complexity approach and the dissolving notion of 'mainstream' are here interpreted as indicative of a changing economics. A short foray into the features of the process of change completes my arguments by showing that the shift from one paradigm to another has many interrelated dimensions, and that there may be rigidities internalizing changes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-2681(10)00163-0
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Volume (Year): 76 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
Pages: 584-596

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:76:y:2010:i:3:p:584-596
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Magda Fontana, 2006. "Computer simulations, mathematics and economics," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 53(1), pages 96-123, March.
  2. G. Fagiolo & C. Birchenhall & P. Windrum, 2007. "Empirical Validation in Agent-based Models: Introduction to the Special Issue," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 189-194, October.
  3. David Colander (ed.), 2000. "The Complexity Vision and the Teaching of Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1955.
  4. Debreu, Gerard, 1986. "Theoretical Models: Mathematical Forms and Economic Content," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1259-1270, November.
  5. Denis Phan & Franck Varenne, 2010. "Agent-Based Models and Simulations in Economics and Social Sciences," Post-Print hal-00554700, HAL.
  6. Paul Windrum & Giorgio Fagiolo & Alessio Moneta, 2007. "Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models: Alternatives and Prospects," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8.
  7. Sheri M. Markose, 2005. "Computability and Evolutionary Complexity: Markets as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(504), pages 159-192, 06.
  8. David Colander & Ric Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2003. "The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0327, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
  9. David Colander, 2003. "The Complexity Revolution and the Future of Economics," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0319, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
  10. Szenberg, Michael & Ramrattan, Lall & Gottesman, Aron A. (ed.), 2006. "Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199298839.
  11. W. Brian Arthur, 1994. "Inductive Reasoning, Bounded Rationality and the Bar Problem," Working Papers 94-03-014, Santa Fe Institute.
  12. Binmore, Ken, 1987. "Modeling Rational Players: Part I," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 179-214, October.
  13. Nick Vriend, 2000. "Was Hayek An Ace?," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 272, Society for Computational Economics.
  14. Magda Fontana, 2010. "The Santa Fe Perspective on economics: emerging patterns in the science of complexity," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 167-196.
  15. Richard H. Day, 1994. "Complex Economic Dynamics - Vol. 1: An Introduction to Dynamical Systems and Market Mechanisms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262041413.
  16. Arthur, W Brian, 1994. "Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 406-411, May.
  17. Richard Holt & J. Barkley Rosser & David Colander, 2011. "The Complexity Era in Economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 357-369.
  18. J. Barkley Rosser, 2009. "Computational and Dynamic Complexity in Economics," Chapters, in: Handbook of Research on Complexity, chapter 3 Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Roger Koppl & J. Barkley Rosser Jr, 2002. "All That I Have to Say Has Already Crossed Your Mind," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 339-360, November.
  20. Sargent, Thomas J., 1993. "Bounded Rationality in Macroeconomics: The Arne Ryde Memorial Lectures," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288695.
  21. John Foster, 2005. "From simplistic to complex systems in economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(6), pages 873-892, November.
  22. Hahn, Frank, 1991. "The Next Hundred Years," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(404), pages 47-50, January.
  23. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Walrasian Economics in Retrospect," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-04, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
  24. Roger Koppl & Barkley Rosser, 2002. "All that I have to say will already have crossed your mind," Computing in Economics and Finance 2002 185, Society for Computational Economics.
  25. Blaug, Mark, 2003. "The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 145-156, June.
  26. John B. Davis, 2008. "The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 349-366, May.
  27. Holland, John H & Miller, John H, 1991. "Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 365-371, May.
  28. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 1993. "The Revenge of Homo Economicus: Contested Exchange and the Revival of Political Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 83-102, Winter.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:76:y:2010:i:3:p:584-596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.