IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ise/isegwp/wp472008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Socioeconomic Complexity and the Sociological Tradition: New Wine in Old Bottles

Author

Listed:
  • João Carlos Graça
  • João Carlos Lopes

Abstract

Complexity is a purposeful integrating framework for interdisciplinary dialogue, namely between sociologists and economists. After presenting some properties of complex (social) systems, we consider the crucial role of the economic complexity research agenda in challenging the mainstream economic paradigm. This endeavor, we suggest, can greatly benefit from a neglected but relevant aspect, the concern regarding social complexity implicit in the sociological tradition, particularly the emphasis given by Durkheim to the idea of interdependence, a keystone of complexity studies nowadays. As we underline, instead of assuming interdependence/complexity and autonomy/simplicity in a tradeoff relationship, the French sociologist takes interdependence and autonomy as fundamentally complementary and positively correlated characteristics of modern societies. This fact suggests the convenience to conceptualize complexity as a broad socioeconomic, and not just a strict economic, phenomenon. Such a purpose is certainly more damaged than benefited by the existence of the economics/sociology academic divide.

Suggested Citation

  • João Carlos Graça & João Carlos Lopes, 2008. "Socioeconomic Complexity and the Sociological Tradition: New Wine in Old Bottles," Working Papers Department of Economics 2008/47, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
  • Handle: RePEc:ise:isegwp:wp472008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~depeco/wp/wp472008.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. António Afonso & Christophe Rault, 2010. "What do we really know about fiscal sustainability in the EU? A panel data diagnostic," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), pages 731-755.
    2. Suzanne McCoskey & Chihwa Kao, 1998. "A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 57-84.
    3. Normandin, Michel, 1999. "Budget deficit persistence and the twin deficits hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, pages 171-193.
    4. Chinn, Menzie D. & Prasad, Eswar S., 2003. "Medium-term determinants of current accounts in industrial and developing countries: an empirical exploration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 47-76, January.
    5. Nouriel Roubini, 1988. "Current Account and Budget Deficits in an Intertemporal Model of Consumption and Taxation Smoothing. A Solution to the "Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle"?," NBER Working Papers 2773, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. John Y. Campbell & Pierre Perron, 1991. "Pitfalls and Opportunities: What Macroeconomists Should Know About Unit Roots," NBER Chapters,in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1991, Volume 6, pages 141-220 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Mankiw, N. Gregory, 2006. "Reflections on the trade deficit and fiscal policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 679-682, September.
    8. Barro, Robert J, 1974. "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(6), pages 1095-1117, Nov.-Dec..
    9. Florian Pelgrin & Alain de Serres, 2003. "The Decline in Private Saving Rates in the 1990s in OECD Countries: How Much Can Be Explained by Non-wealth Determinants?," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2003(1), pages 117-153.
    10. Obstfeld, Maurice & Rogoff, Kenneth, 1995. "The intertemporal approach to the current account," Handbook of International Economics,in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 1731-1799 Elsevier.
    11. Nickel, Christiane & Funke, Katja, 2006. "Does fiscal policy matter for the trade account? A panel cointegration study," Working Paper Series 620, European Central Bank.
    12. Peter Postl, 2013. "Efficiency versus optimality in procurement," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(2), pages 425-472, June.
    13. Pedroni, Peter, 2004. "Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic And Finite Sample Properties Of Pooled Time Series Tests With An Application To The Ppp Hypothesis," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(03), pages 597-625, June.
    14. Moon, H.R.Hyungsik Roger & Perron, Benoit, 2004. "Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 81-126, September.
    15. António Afonso & Christophe Rault, 2010. "What do we really know about fiscal sustainability in the EU? A panel data diagnostic," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 145(4), pages 731-755, January.
    16. Westerlund, Joakim & Edgerton, David L., 2007. "A panel bootstrap cointegration test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 185-190, December.
    17. Jushan Bai & Serena Ng, 2004. "A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1127-1177, July.
    18. M. Hashem Pesaran, 2007. "A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2), pages 265-312.
    19. Lori Leachman & Bill Francis, 2002. "Twin Deficits: Apparition or Reality?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(9), pages 1121-1132.
    20. Dornbusch, Rudiger, 1976. "Expectations and Exchange Rate Dynamics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(6), pages 1161-1176, December.
    21. Stephen M. Miller & Frank S. Russek, 1989. "Are The Twin Deficits Really Related?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 7(4), pages 91-115, October.
    22. António Afonso & Christophe Rault, 2007. "What We Really Know about Fiscal Sustainability in the EU? A Panel Data Diagnostic," Working Papers Department of Economics 2007/20, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    23. Gruber, Joseph W. & Kamin, Steven B., 2007. "Explaining the global pattern of current account imbalances," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 500-522, June.
    24. Enders, Walter & Lee, Bong-Soo, 1990. "Current Account and Budget Deficits: Twins or Distant Cousins?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(3), pages 373-381, August.
    25. Anindya Banerjee & Josep Lluís Carrion-i-Silvestre, 2006. "Cointegration in Panel Data with Breaks and Cross-Section Dependence," Economics Working Papers ECO2006/5, European University Institute.
    26. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Vanessa Smith, L. & Yamagata, Takashi, 2013. "Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 94-115.
    27. Bussière, Matthieu & Fratzscher, Marcel & Müller, Gernot J., 2010. "Productivity shocks, budget deficits and the current account," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1562-1579, December.
    28. Martin Feldstein, 1992. "The Budget and Trade Deficits Aren't Really Twins," NBER Working Papers 3966, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Feldstein, Martin & Horioka, Charles, 1980. "Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 314-329, June.
    30. Rosenswieg, Jeffrey A & Tallman, Ellis W, 1993. "Fiscal Policy and Trade Adjustment: Are the Deficits Really Twins?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(4), pages 580-594, October.
    31. Piersanti, Giovanni, 2000. "Current account dynamics and expected future budget deficits: some international evidence," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 255-271, April.
    32. Im, Kyung So & Pesaran, M. Hashem & Shin, Yongcheol, 2003. "Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 53-74, July.
    33. L. Vanessa Smith & Stephen Leybourne & Tae-Hwan Kim & Paul Newbold, 2004. "More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 147-170.
    34. Giancarlo Corsetti & Gernot J. Müller, 2006. "Twin deficits: squaring theory, evidence and common sense," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 21(48), pages 597-638, October.
    35. Richard Kopcke & Geoffrey M. B. Tootell & Robert K. Triest (ed.), 2006. "The Macroeconomics of Fiscal Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262112957, January.
    36. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3, February.
    37. Pedroni, Peter, 1999. " Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 653-670, Special I.
    38. William G. Dewald & Michael Ulan, 1990. "The Twin-Deficit Illusion," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 689-707, Winter.
    39. Levin, Andrew & Lin, Chien-Fu & James Chu, Chia-Shang, 2002. "Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 1-24, May.
    40. Cherneff, R V, 1976. "Policy Conflict and Coordination under Fixed Exchanges: The Case of an Upward Sloping IS Curve," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1219-1224, September.
    41. Maddala, G S & Wu, Shaowen, 1999. " A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 61(0), pages 631-652, Special I.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Socioeconomic complexity; interdependence; autonomy; sociological tradition; Durkheim;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ise:isegwp:wp472008. 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: (Vitor Escaria). General contact details of provider: https://aquila1.iseg.ulisboa.pt/aquila/departamentos/EC .

    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.