Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
More specii cally, in the modern economy they seek out information about the beliefs/
knowledge of others in order to cooperate to modify the environment. This implies
that there will particular forms of complexity in economic systems that are beyond any
'natural laws' of complexity but are highly social, institutional and historical. However,
this is only a starting point. Foster goes on to argue that 'Economic self-organisation
is not the same as biological self-organisation, despite the fact that they share common
properties' (2000, p. 325). The principles and rules of i rst and second order complex
systems can be applied to economic systems, but they operate 'somewhat dif erently'
because of the greater role of knowledge and foresight (Foster, 2004, p. 11).
In similar fashion, complexity economics also synthesises evolutionary approaches
with complexity thinking on dissipative systems. In Beinhocker's (2006) account, for
example, the essential complexity framework that spans both natural and social systems
is an adaptive, iterative evolutionary algorithm. In this algorithm, the universal evolu-
tionary mechanisms are those that act to dif erentiate, select and replicate, and allow
adaptive agents to co-evolve with their environments. He suggests that there has been
'too much loose analogizing about how the economy might be
like
an evolutionary
system' (p. 12). He adds:
Modern ef orts to understand the economy as an evolutionary system avoid such metaphors
and instead focus on understanding how the universal algorithm of evolution is literally and
specii cally implemented in the information-processing substrate of human economic activity.
While both biological and economic systems share the core algorithm of evolution and thus
have some similarities, the realizations of evolution are in fact very dif erent and must be under-
stood in their individual contexts. (Beinhocker, 2006, p. 12)
Thus in recent complexity economics, most authors have been at pains to emphasise
that economic systems display forms of complex behaviours that are distinct from, and
yet build on and resemble, the versions of complexity identii ed in the physical and bio-
logical worlds. But the argument that there are both shared common patterns and yet very
distinctive social and economic versions of evolutionary complexity, creates several ten-
sions and unresolved questions. Complexity economics insists that economic systems are
distinctive, yet, as we will see, when convenient, it continues to import complexity dynam-
ics and models identii ed in natural science and suggests that analogous patterns can be
identii ed in the economic system. How much complexity science can we translate into
the economic sphere, and how exactly should it be mediated and modii ed? How many of
the principles and axioms that are distinctive and characteristic of complex natural evo-
lutionary systems carry over and extend to social forms of complexity? Given the lack of
agreement on such questions, it is not surprising - as Perona points out - that while com-
plexity ideas are thriving in economics, there remains confusion between epistemological
and ontological aspects of complexity economics. A complexity approach to evolutionary
economic geography will need to address and resolve this confusion if it is to provide a
convincing new approach. In addition, as we now go on to discuss, when we move from
the economy to the economic landscape there are further issues that need clarii cation.
4. Emergent economic landscapes?
Complexity economics at present says very little about space and geographical dif er-
ences. Admittedly, existing models of self-organising economic landscapes demonstrate
