Some weeks ago I presented a paper at the "Conference on Complex Systems", an interdisciplinary event hosting

Some weeks ago I presented a paper at the “Conference on Complex Systems”, an interdisciplinary event hosting researchers from mathematics, computer science, physics, biology, communication science, economics and other fields. The underlying common theme of these researchers is, of course, the structure and properties of complex networks, which leads them to consider a series of topics familiar to heterodox economics. Among them are the idea that relations matter for understanding social systems, the finding that hierarchies are often structured in accordance with power laws, the insight that self-reinforcing feedback effects matter for dynamic processes and lead to path-dependent developments, or the fact that it is mostly futile to aim for explaining macro-properties by simple reductionist routines (aka methodological individualism). Hence, it comes as no surprise that the presentations on “complexity economics” also had a decisively heterodox flavor: one finds analyses on the predatory nature of international trade, a series of agent-based models with relational behavior, endogenous money and demand-determined variables, empirical studies of highly concentrated ownership networks and endogenous bubbles in financial markets or simulations of the emergence and development of inequality of wealth. In this respect, I was also delighted to spot a nice paper in the current issue of Economic Thought, which provides a short, but well-done, introduction to some core features of complexity economics in an easily accessible way. Such contributions are especially important as my one great reservation with said conference was that a lot of the work presented there was strongly driven by computational methods and techniques, sometimes accompanied by a lack of conceptual depth. In other words: Some of these researchers do really interesting stuff but are not aware of the conceptual and theoretical background available in heterodox economics, which might provide a theoretical framework for the interesting - and often unconventional - empirical applications they develop. Let me add that I would interpret this latter observation not as a criticism but rather as a pointer, which indicates that there are many possible synergies between the works of heterodox economists and complexity scientists. Finally, I want close this editorial with a personal note, as I am currently starting my work as a visiting professor for social economics at the University of Duisburg-Essen, where I have the honor to act as a substitute for this great researcher. In this context, I want to thank the Department of Sociology at the University of Duisburg-Essen for their invitation and hospitality as well as ensure you, my dear readers, that our work at the Institute of Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy at Johannes Kepler University Linz, which is also the hosting institution of this newsletter, is nonetheless on-going. All the best, Jakob © public domain