Posted by ""Michael J. Radzicki, Ph.D."" <
radzicki@comcast.net>
John:
I have devoted much of my career to determining how SDers and economists =
can be
brought together in a manner that is scientifically acceptable/credible t=
o both
camps. For what it's worth, I think I have an answer...Basically you have=
to
talk
to the right kinds of economists. That is, economists who adhere to scho=
ols of
economic thought that are similar in spirit to system dynamics. The princ=
ipal
schools of economists who tend to value SD include:
1. Institutional economists. These economists take a ""holistic systems ap=
proach""
to economics and believe that ""circular and cumulative causation"" is one =
of the
most important principles of economics.
2. Post Keynesian economists. These economists like to build ""stock-flow
consistent models"" and tend to agree with the institutionalists 99% of th=
e time.
In fact, Post Keynesian and institutional economists go to each other's
conferences and publish in each other's journals.
3. Ecological economists. These economists also take a holistic systems a=
pproach
to economics, but tend to focus more narrowly on sustainable development.=
They
tend to love the Limits to Growth stuff.
4. Behavioral economists. These economists reject the homoeconomicus, rat=
ional
economic man, assumption of neoclassical economics. To the extent SD mode=
ls
embody equations representing actual human decision making, they tend to =
see
value.
These schools of economic thought are basically ""heterodox."" The economis=
ts
working in these schools are trying to buck the economic orthodoxy just l=
ike
many
SDers are.
For more info see:
1. Radzicki, Michael J. 2009. =93Was Alfred Eichner a System Dynamicist?=94=
In Marc
Lavoie, Louis-Philippe Rochon and Mario Seccareccia, eds. Money and
Macroeconomic
Issues: Alfred Eichner and Post-Keynesian Economics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sh=
arpe.
In
Press.
2. Radzicki, Michael J. 2008. ""Institutional Economics, Post Keynesian
Economics,
and System Dynamics: Three Strands of a Heterodox Economics Braid."" In Jo=
hn T.
Harvey and Robert F. Garnett, Jr., eds. The Future of Heterodox Economics.
Chapter 9. Pages 156-184. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3. Radzicki, Michael J. 2003. ""Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester and a Foundati=
on for
Evolutionary Economics."" Journal of Economic Issues. 37(1): 133-173.
4. Radzicki, Michael J. 1990. =93Methodologia Oeconomiae et Systematis Dy=
namis.=94
System Dynamics Review 6(2): 123-147.
5. Radzicki, Michael J. 1988. =93Institutional Dynamics: An Extension of=
the
Institutionalist Approach to Socioeconomic Analysis.=94 Journal of Econom=
ic Issues
22(3): 633-666.
These and other papers I have written on the subject can be downloaded fr=
om:
http://michaeljosephradzicki.com/research.htm
Lastly, ""computational economists"" MAY value SD modeling b/c they value
simulation as a tool for doing economics. However, the term ""computationa=
l
economists"" embodies everyone from those who use agent-based modeling for
economic analysis to those who build computational general equilibrium mo=
dels,
so
SDers need to talk to the right sub-group of economists in this camp. Act=
ually,
some transportation economists may consider themselves to be computationa=
l
economists.
Long story short - If you're going to address a group of hard core neocla=
ssical
economists, wear your flack vest (or at least translate everything into o=
rdinary
differential equations, use Greek letters and integral signs, define tabl=
e
function shapes with first and second derivatives, and say ""simulation"" n=
ot
""system dynamics"").
Cheers.
Mike Radzicki
Posted by ""Michael J. Radzicki, Ph.D."" <
radzicki@comcast.net>
posting date Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:01:47 -0400
_______________________________________________