IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Defense of System Dynamics: A Response to Professor Hayden


  • Michael Radzicki
  • Linwood Tauheed


In a 2006 paper, Professor Gregory Hayden argued that system dynamics is an inadequate tool for explaining the institutional systems principles of hierarchy, feedback and openness. The purpose of this paper is to show that many of Professor Hayden's claims are either misguided or incorrect. The paper also reinforces the argument that system dynamics modeling can add significant value to traditional institutional economic analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Radzicki & Linwood Tauheed, 2009. "In Defense of System Dynamics: A Response to Professor Hayden," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 1043-1061.
  • Handle: RePEc:mes:jeciss:v:43:y:2009:i:4:p:1043-1061 DOI: 10.2753/JEI0021-3624430411

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mitra, Pradeep & Yemtsov, Ruslan, 2006. "Increasing inequality in transition economies : is there more to come?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4007, The World Bank.
    2. Zbigniew Matkowski, 2004. "Postsocialist Countries : Macroeconomic Performance, Growth Prospects, and Social Welfare," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 44-80, May.
    3. Robert Boyer, 2005. "How and why capitalisms differ," Post-Print halshs-00754052, HAL.
    4. Simon Johnson & Daniel Kaufman & Andrei Shleifer, 1997. "The Unofficial Economy in Transition," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 28(2), pages 159-240.
    5. repec:mes:jeciss:v:39:y:2005:i:1:p:75-90 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Christopher Gerry & Tomasz Marek Mickiewicz, 2007. "Inequality, democracy and taxation: lessons from the post-communist transition," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 74, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    7. Boyer, Robert, 2005. "How and Why Capitalisms Differ," MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    8. repec:mes:jeciss:v:40:y:2006:i:4:p:875-894 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Sukiassyan, Grigor, 2007. "Inequality and growth: What does the transition economy data say?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 35-56, March.
    10. Vladimir Popov, 2006. "Shock Therapy Versus Gradualism Reconsidered: Lessons From Transition Economies After 15 Years Of Reforms," Working Papers w0068, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
    11. Robert Boyer, 2005. "How and why capitalisms differ," Post-Print hal-00812971, HAL.
    12. Thorsten Beck & Luc Laeven, 2006. "Institution building and growth in transition economies," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 157-186, June.
    13. Milan Vodopivec & Andreas Wörgötter & Dhushyanth Raju, 2005. "Unemployment Benefit Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: A Review of the 1990s1," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 47(4), pages 615-651, December.
    14. Blanchard, Olivier, 1998. "The Economics of Post-Communist Transition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198293996, June.
    15. Josef C. Brada, 1996. "Privatization Is Transition--Or Is It?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 67-86, Spring.
    16. Martin H. Wolfson, 2003. "Neoliberalism and the Social Structure of Accumulation," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 255-262, September.
    17. Veblen, Thorstein, 1899. "The Theory of the Leisure Class," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number veblen1899.
    18. Tito Boeri & Katherine Terrell, 2002. "Institutional Determinants of Labor Reallocation in Transition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 51-76, Winter.
    19. Seeth, Harm Tho & Chachnov, Sergei & Surinov, Alexander & Von Braun, Joachim, 1998. "Russian poverty: Muddling through economic transition with garden plots," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(9), pages 1611-1624, September.
    20. Edward N. Wolff, 2001. "The recent rise of profits in the United States," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 315-324, September.
    21. Arjun Jayadev, 2007. "Capital account openness and the labour share of income," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 423-443, May.
    22. Milan Zafirovski, 2005. "Labor Markets’ Institutional Properties And Distributive Justice In Modern Society: A Comparative Empirical Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 51-97, May.
    23. Jan Svejnar, 2002. "Transition Economies: Performance and Challenges," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 3-28, Winter.
    24. Jens Hölscher, 2006. "Income Distribution and Convergence in the Transition Process – A Cross-Country Comparison," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 48(2), pages 302-325, June.
    25. repec:taf:ceasxx:v:58:y:2006:i:7:p:1033-1056 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gräbner, Claudius, 2016. "Agent-based computational models– a formal heuristic for institutionalist pattern modelling?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(01), pages 241-261, March.
    2. Xingpeng Chen & Guokui Wang & Xiaojia Guo & Jinxiu Fu, 2016. "An Analysis Based on SD Model for Energy-Related CO 2 Mitigation in the Chinese Household Sector," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:mes:jeciss:v:43:y:2009:i:4:p:1043-1061. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.