The complementary relationship between institutional and complexity economics: The example of deep mechanismic explanations

Gräbner, Claudius (2016): The complementary relationship between institutional and complexity economics: The example of deep mechanismic explanations.

Abstract

Analyzing economic systems from an evolutionary-institutional or a complexity perspective are two complementary approaches to economic inquiry. Three arguments in favor of this hypothesis are discussed: (i) eminent institutional economists have considered the economy as what today could be considered a complex system; (ii) complexity economists lack meta-theoretical foundations which could be provided by institutionalist theory; (iii) institutional economists could benefit from using methods of complexity economics. In this context I argue that scholars considering the economy to be complex should seek to explain it by discovering social mechanisms instead of focusing on prediction. For the discrimination between alternative explanations, scholars should refer to the deepness of an explanation, rather than to Occam’s razor.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Evolutionary-Institutional economics, Philosophy of science, Systemism, Agent-Based Computational Economics, Complexity Economics
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B25 - Historical ; Institutional ; Evolutionary ; Austrian; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B52 - Institutional ; Evolutionary

References

Berger, Sebastian, and Wolfram Elsner “European Contributions to Evolutionary Institutional Economics: The Cases of ‘Cumulative Circular Causation’ (CCC) and ‘Open Systems Approach’ (OSA).” Journal of Economic Issues 41, 2 (2007): 1-43.

Bunge, Mario A. “The Weight of Simplicity in the Construction and Assaying of Scientific Theories.” Philosophy of Science 28, 2 (1961): 120-149.

Bunge, Mario A. Social Science under Debate. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Bunge, Mario A. Evaluating Philosophies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012.

Bunge, Mario A. “How Does It Work: The Search for Explanatory Mechanisms.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34, 2 (2004): 182-210.

Bush, Paul D. “The Theory of Institutional Change.” Journal of Economic Issues 21, 3 (1987): 1075-1116.

Cowen, Tyler “Do economists use social mechanisms to explain?” In Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg, 125-146. Cambridge, UK et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Deaton, Angus “Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development” Journal of Economic Literature 48, 2 (2010): 424-455.

Elsner, Wolfram. Ökonomische Institutionenanalyse - Paradigmatische Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie und der Sinn eines Rückgriffs auf die ökonomische Klassik am Beispiel der Institutionenanalyse („Property Rights“). Berlin, DE: Dunker & Humblot, 1986.

Elsner, Wolfram. “The Theory of Institutional Change Revisited: The Institutional Dichotomy, Its Dynamic, and Its Policy Implications in a More Formal Analysis.” Journal of Economic Issues 46, 1 (2012): 1-43.

Gräbner, Claudius. “Agent-based computational models– a formal heuristic for institutionalist pattern modelling?” Journal of Institutional Economics 1, 12 (2016): 241-261.

Gräbner, Claudius. “Dealing adequately with the political element in formal modeling.” In A Cyprus Symposium: Theory and Method of Evolutionary Political Economy, edited by Hardy Hanappi, Savvas Katsikides, and Manuel Scholz-Wäckerle. London, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, forththcoming 2017.

Gräbner, Claudius, and Jakob Kapeller. “New Perspectives on Institutionalist Pattern Modeling: Systemism, Complexity, and Agent-Based Modeling.” Journal of Economic Issues 49, 2 (2015): 433-440.

Gräbner, Claudius, and Jakob Kapeller. “The micro-macro link in heterodox economics.” In The Handbook of Heterodox Economics, edited by Lynne Chester, Carlo D’Ipolity and Tae-Hee Jo. London: Routledge, forthcoming 2017.

Grüne-Yanoff, Till “Why Behavioural Policy Needs Mechanistic Evidence.” Economics & Philosophy 32, 3 (2016): 463-483.

Hayden, Gregory F. Policymaking for a good society. Ney York, NY: Springer, 2006.

Hedström, Peter and Richard Swedberg. “Social mechanisms: an introductory essay”. In Social Mechanisms. In An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg, 1-31. Cambridge, UK et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. Economics in the shadows of Darwin and Marx. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2006.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. Conceptualizing Capitalism. Institutions, Evolution, Future. Chicago, IL, and London, UK: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Mäki, Uskali “Models and truth: The functional decomposition approach” In: EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, edited by Mauricio Suarez, Mauro Dorato and Miklós Redei, 177-187. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.

von Mises, Ludwig. Human Action. A Treatise on Economics. London, UK: William Hodge, 1949.

Moneta, Alessio and Federica Russo. “Causal models and evidential pluralism in econometrics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 21, 1 (2014): 54-76.

Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. Ney York, NY; London, UK: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1944.

Myrdal, Gunnar “Equity and growth.” World Development 1, 11 (1973): 43-47.

Page, Scott E. “Aggregation in agent-based models of economies” The Knowledge Engineering Review 27, 2 (2012): 151-162.

Veblen, Thorstein The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009[1899].

Witt, Ulrich “Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 21 (2010): 17-25.