Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Political Economy and the Work of Kenneth Arrow

Written By

Norman Schofield

Submitted: 08 March 2018 Reviewed: 09 April 2018 Published: 28 November 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77104

From the Edited Volume

Spatial Analysis, Modelling and Planning

Edited by Jorge Rocha and José António Tenedório

Chapter metrics overview

1,290 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

This chapter contrasts two domains of human activity: LOGOS, the principle of enlightenment rationality and MYTHOS, the search for meaning through religion. LOGOS has created our modern world, and we have many successes as a result: the general equilibrium result for economics, general relativity, and quantum mechanics (but as yet no combined theory of the two). Even Newtonian mechanics has led to the notion of chaos. The Hilbert program to show the consistency and completeness of Mathematics has been invalidated by Godel’s Theorem, while the attempt to extend the economics general equilibrium theorem fails because of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Darwinian evolutionary theory is another success of Logos, but even here, there are many difficulties, particularly how genes work Logos has allowed us to create our industrial society, but has also led us to climate change, without indicating how we can avoid the collapse of civilization. Here we suggest that we may be able to use Mythos, our collective beliefs in what we should do, to help us make a wise choice about the future. The greatest failure of Logos is that we have no understanding of the nature of consciousness. If we can develop such a theory, then perhaps we can construct a theoretical political economy. Without this, it appears likely that climate change could induce a Malthusian trap for us unless we pay heed to Pope Francis’s call for us to “Care for Our Common Home.” Since this presents us with a common goal, it is possible that we can make a wise choice over our future.

1. Introduction

The foundations of western science in the most general sense of the term were perhaps handed down by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) in his Leviathan of 1651 [78] and by Isaac Newton (1642–1727) in his Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica of 1687. Newton’s work, particularly the Optiks, as well as his underlying philosophy of science, was transmitted throughout Europe by Voltaire’s (1694–1778) book on the Elements of Newton’s Philosophy (published in 1738).

The human sciences, and especially political economy and moral philosophy, were developed further in France by Condillac’s (1715–1780) Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge (1746) and Turgot’s (1727–1781) Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth (1766), and in Scotland by David Hume’s (1711–1776) Essays Moral and Political (1742) and Adam Smith’s (1723–1790) Wealth of Nations of 1776. At roughly the same time, Condorcet (1743–1794) published his Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions (1785) and the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progres de l’esprit humain (1794). The former essay had little widespread impact at the time (although Thomas Jefferson, a friend of Condorcet, while in Paris almost certainly read it). The latter essay was used by Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) as the point of departure for his pessimistic book, the Essay on the Principle of Population [106], where he argued against what he saw as Condorcet’s excessively optimistic, “Smithian,” viewpoint.

Since then, of course, political economy developed apace in the work of Ricardo, Pareto, Walras and Marshall, culminating in the mathematical existence theorems for a competitive equilibrium (von Nuemann, 1935 (1946); Wald, 1935; [7]; McKenzie, 1954).

In contrast to the theoretical efforts on the economic side of political economy, almost no work on formalizing Condorcet’s insights, in his Essay of 1785 on the political side of political economy, was attempted until the late 1940s, when Duncan Black and Kenneth Arrow published seminal papers on this topic.

In 1948, Duncan Black published his paper “On the Rationale of Group Decision Making,” [20] specifically addressed to the question of existence of a voting equilibrium. He followed this in 1958 with his monograph on The Theory of Committees and Elections. The monograph emphasized the importance of Condorcet’s work in voting theory but paid much less attention to the so-called Condorcet Jury Theorem. In contrast, recent research has suggested that this latter theorem gives a justification for majority rule as a “truth seeking” device.

Arrow’s paper on “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare,” [6] derives, I believe, from quite a different tradition of formal political economy, namely the work in welfare economics of Bergson (1938), Hicks (1939) and Lange (1942). (It should perhaps be emphasized that both welfare economics and political economy, viewed in the larger sense, became the arena for sometimes vigorous arguments in the 1930s and 1940s in the work of Schumpeter, Hayek, Popper and von Mises, etc.).

Arrow’s famous paper of 1950 shows essentially that any social welfare function (that maps families of weak individual orderings to a weak social order) is either imposed or dictatorial. To obtain what Arrow termed this “possibility theorem,” he assumed that the social welfare function had universal domain and satisfied a property of positive association of preferences. Reading this paper and a related one by Arrow on “Welfare Economics” [6], I infer that Arrow’s realization of the applicability of the social choice paradox to welfare economics came about from his deep understanding of Scitovsky’s “Note on Welfare Properties in Economics” (1942). A typical assumption in economics is that a move from a restricted trade situation, x, say, to a “free-trade” situation y is “welfare preferred.” Even though not all individuals may prefer y to x, nonetheless winners in y may compensate losers in y, so that the post-compensation outcome y*, say, is unanimously preferred to x. If this holds, then y is said to be “welfare preferred” to x, even when compensation is not implemented. Scitovsky observed that “welfare preferred” can be badly behaved, since y may be preferred to x, and x to y.

As Arrow commented in his paper, the negative result of the “possibility theorem” was “strongly reminiscent of the intransitivity of the concept of domination in the theory of multiperson games” as presented in von Neumann and Morgenstern (1947). Since intransitivity of domination occurs most obviously in constant sum voting games, I also infer that Arrow means that the “possibility theorem” was derived from the fact that all welfare judgments are implicitly based on transfers of wealth. In his 1950 paper, (on Social Welfare), Arrow also emphasizes that he views the theorem as relevant to a situation where individuals make value judgments rather than to the more typical economic context where agents make choices based on their tastes. Since all political choices are based, to some degree or other, on the aggregation of values, I further infer that the “possibility theorem” addresses not just the traditional questions of welfare economics, but the larger issue of the interaction between the political and economic realms. In other words, the relevance of the theorem is not simply to do with the Condorcetian question of voting cycles, or intransitivies, but concerns the larger questions of political economy that were discussed earlier by Schumpeter, Hayek, Popper, and so on in the period before World War II.

The formal exercise of proof of existence of an economic equilibrium (obtained between 1935 and 1954) leaves unanswered many questions. For example, can the existence proof be extended from the domain of private commodities to include public goods? More particularly, can democratic procedures be devised to ensure that preference information be aggregated in an “efficient” fashion so that social choice is welfare maximizing. Arrow’s possibility theorem suggests that democracy itself may be flawed: indeed it suggests that democratic institutions may (as Madison foresaw in Federalist X) be perverted or turbulent. Thus, difficult questions of institutional design need to be addressed. Third, since Arrow’s theorem required an ordering of social states, it implicitly brings into question the nature of the stability of price equilibria (even when they exist). The example of Scarf (1954) indicates that the dynamical system defined by tatonnement may be structurally unstable. This raises the possibility that both economic and political systems may be chaotic.

Since 1950, these issues have been discussed at varying levels of intensity. All of them come back in one sense or another to an interpretation of Arrow’s Theorem. In the rest of this essay, I shall attempt to outline my sense of the current state of the debate, and the relationship with Arrow’s Theorem, along the following lines:

  1. Extension of equilibrium theories in economics to the larger realm of political economy (neo-Smithian theories);

  2. Democratic institutions and the compatibility of economics and politics (neo-Condorcetian theories);

  3. “Chaos” in political economies, and recent notions of complex behavior in dynamical systems (from Newton to Laplace to Poincare);

  4. Large-scale prediction or “post diction,” and macroeconomic history (neo-Malthusian theories).

  5. The effect of climate change on these theories.

  6. The possibility that complex societies such as ours can reach a tipping point and collapse (as the Roman empire did).

  7. Extension of equilibrium theories and much of economic theory emphasise the importance of economic growth. But after 200 years of growth, we now face the likelihood that climate change will make growth in the future impossible. Recent work by Stern [160, 161] suggests how we can estimate the costs of ameliorating the ravages of climate change. Ultimately, we need a new theory of economic externalities. Stern [162] goes on to suggest that we need a new theory of social welfare to indicate how we can structure a rational political economy. However Arrow’s Impossibility theorem indicates that a social welfare function may not exist. Devising a social welfare function may necessitate incorporating the following themes:

  8. Aggregation procedures: We can first mention the work of Don Saari [138, 139] who has shown how almost all aggregation procedures can give rise to counter intuitive or “chaotic” outcomes. In particular, the work of Sonnenschein [158], Mantel [108] and Debreu [46] made it clear that devising a method to translate rational consumer behavior into a price vector was anything but obvious.

  9. Chaos: Philosophers such as Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich von Hayek, and Karl Popper in the period around World War II were all involved in the debate about whether a social welfare function could be constructed. Arrow’s Theorem gave a negative answer to this debate. In order to understand Arrow’s theorem, it is necessary to set out the fundamental problem of political economy, namely, the nature and evolution of the social relationship between human beings. Since I understand this debate to focus on the possibility of equilibrium in contrast to disequilibrium (or disorder), I shall also mention what I judge to be a significant anti-equilibrium discovery of this century: “chaos.” To do this, I think it appropriate to briefly comment on my perception of the main themes of this debate, going back to the time of the time of Hobbes. For Hobbes, society could fall into disorder in the absence of a Leviathan, able to maintain the peace. I understand this debate to focus on the possibility of equilibrium in contrast to disequilibrium (or disorder), I shall also mention what I judge to be a significant anti-equilibrium discovery of this century: “chaos.” The idea of “deterministic” chaos only developed in the last 50 years and came about because of a better understanding of the solar system. “To illustrate, astronomers since the time of Pierre-Simon Laplace (1799) have believed that the solar system is structurally stable: In other words, small perturbations in each planetary orbit (induced by other planets) cannot dramatically change the nature of the orbit. Although Isaac Newton was aware of the problem of perturbations (Newton 1687), even Henri Poincare in his treatise of 1890 could not solve the differential equations.” However, Poincare’s work led to the beginning of differential topology and the work of Marston Morse, John Milnor, and Stephen Smale in this century. If the solar system were structurally unstable, or indeed chaotic, then it would be impossible to predict its evolution. In fact, it is not chaotic, although subsystems (such as asteroids) are1. As a result of popular books [60], we can conceive of natural phenomena (hurricanes) or even large-scale dynamic systems (such as climate) as potentially chaotic (Lorenz, 1993)2. Although still a young science, human evolutionary theory suggests that chaotic transformations in weather may have had a profound effect on the human diaspora “out of Africa” (Boaz 1997; Calvin 1990; Stanley 1996). “Equilibrium”-focused evolutionary theory may also need revision (Eldridge and Gould 1972; Gould 1996). Figure 1 shows the chaotic variation in temperature over the last 100,000 years.

  10. Malthus and evolution: Malthus published his book on Population in 1798, arguing that population will tend to grow exponentially while resources are bounded arithmetically. This insight provided Darwin [44] with the logic of natural selection. Although Darwin favored the notion of slow evolutionary change, it has been pointed out that evolution has in the past been driven by cataclysmic extinction events when nearly all species go extinct (Eldridge and Gould 1972; Gould 1996). This notion of punctuated equilibrium has been applied at the level of the entire biosphere to suggest that the evolution of the climatic system can undergo dramatic transformations. Indeed Greer [59] suggests that the current episode of anthromorphic climate change will force on us such a transformation sufficient to destroy our civilization. Our civilization has depended on the availability of cheap energy, and as we use up this energy, we will face a neo-Malthusian catastrophe. Indeed as Diamond [47] pointed out many societies have in the past faced such a Malthusian collapse. Zhang [186] provided us with some estimates of the Malthusian effects of climate change. Indeed Tainter and Renfrew [166] argued that all complex societies, including our own, can or indeed will hit a tipping point after which they go into decline3. Ahmed [5] ties this tipping point to the combined effect of peak energy (the increasing cost of obtaining energy), food disruption (due to climate change) and social dislocation. To illustrate, Figure 2 shows the estimated losses of agricultural production due to climate change.

  11. Collapsing political systems In recent years, we have become used to political disorder in the Middle East, Africa, the Ukraine, and we can expect more of the same (Pakistan?). The countries that have experienced such disorder have also been subject to climatic transformations and food disruptions, as can be seen in Figure 2.

  12. Limits to growth in 1972, Meadows et al. [111] published a book arguing that population growth would eventually give us a world where pollution and the boundedness of the world’s resource would have to be faced. Now, 16 years later, the science of climate change has shown the validity of this argument. Hawken [74] covered some of the ways in which we can limit climate change. However, climate change induces a prisoner’s dilemma in the behavior of nation states, since no state is willing to adopt costly behavior which will limit the effects of climate change.

  13. Markets as prisoners’ dilemmas Cassidy [27] argues that markets involve prisoner’s dilemmas, what he calls rational irrationality. Since a prisoner’s dilemma is fundamentally chaotic, it is not surprising that we can have chaotic market behavior, like the recent turmoil in financial markets. The economic growth that we have experienced since 1945 can be related to the willingness of the United States to act as a hegemon in the creation of the Bretton Woods system of institutions facilitating trade, the protection of property rights and the rule of law.

  14. Complexity theory: The notion of chaos has also given rise to the idea of complexity, the possibility that dynamical systems can generate complex phenomena perhaps through evolutionary transformations [89]. A reason to believe this is because of the Godel [61] incompleteness/inconsistency theorem that mathematics, able to include arithmetic cannot prove that it is both consistent and complete. In addition, Turing’s Theorem [175] showed that Mathematics is a subject to a halting problem unable to determine whether an algorithm has or has not been completed, Penrose [132] uses these two results to argue that the mind is not algorithmic, and indeed is creative. We still have no general theory of consciousness, but without doubt we will probably have such a theory in the future that will allow us to construct a better theory of rationality and thus to construct a theory of social choice that will extend Arrow’s Theorem [141].

  15. MYTHOS As we have suggested, Logos provides humanity with a set of useful clues as to how to understand and thus manipulate the natural world. Knowledge, in the sense of the enlightenment, allowed for the innovations of the scientific revolution. For policy makers, the upshot of these innovations was an often-unstated belief that technology and science would explain and redress the crises that would come to confront humankind. However, thus far, the opposite is true. Even if there was general agreement regarding markets, political methods, and so on, our models are insufficient to capture the scope of these phenomena. Indeed, all our scientific riches put into relief just how defective our model of choosing is.

Figure 1.

The effect of climate change on agricultural production [36].

Figure 2.

Climate 100KYBP to now: chaos from 90 to 10KYBP (source: Global-Fever.org).

Therefore, it may be the case that our model of decision-making does not consider the influence of Mythos on human decision-making. Perhaps humans need something beyond rationality. It could be, therefore, useful to look to thinkers like Pope Francis who take Mythos as the starting point for their thought but have deep respect for scientific inquiry. As he writes in his encyclical Laudato [100], pp. 119:

Doomsday [regarding climate] predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation, and filth. The pace of consumption, waste, and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences.

Succinctly this captures the quandary policy makers find themselves in. Our climate models indicate disaster on the horizon. On the other hand, our models of decision-making indicate that there is no way to rank policy outcomes in an orderly fashion without influence of a hegemon [Arrow]. However, obviously Francis’s thoughts are from an ethical vantage point—the Christian is to be a noble steward of her habitat. Thus, perhaps a religious ideology sympathetic to science, like Francis’s theology, can point the way to a better model of choosing.

References

  1. 1. Acemoglu D, Robinson J. Persistence of power, elites, and institutions. American Economic Review. 2008;98:267-293
  2. 2. Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson J, Yared P. Reevaluating the modernization hypothesis. Journal of Monetary Economics. 2009;56:1043-1058
  3. 3. Acemoglu D, Ozdaglar A, Tahbaz-Salehi A. Cascades in networks and aggregate volatility. NEER working paper # 16516; 2010
  4. 4. Ackerman B. Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press; 2011
  5. 5. Ahmed NM. Falling States, Collapsing Sytems. Berlin: Springer; 2017
  6. 6. Arrow. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy. 1950;58:326-346
  7. 7. Arrow K, Debreu G. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica. 1954;22:265-290
  8. 8. Arrow K. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley; 1951
  9. 9. Arrow, Kenneth, Hahn F. General Competitive Analysis. San Francisco: Holden Day; 1971
  10. 10. Armstrong K. The Eattle for God. New York: Random House; 2011
  11. 11. Austen-Smith D, Banks J. Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. American Political Science Review. 1996;90:34-45
  12. 12. Axelrod R. The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review. 1981;75:306-318
  13. 13. Axelrod R. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic; 1984
  14. 14. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD. The evolution of cooperation. Science. 1981;211:1390-1396
  15. 15. Barbera R. The Cost of Capitalism: Understanding Market Mayhem. New York: McGraw Hill; 2009
  16. 16. Belich J. Replenishing the Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009
  17. 17. Bellah. Religion in Human Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2011
  18. 18. Belich J. Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution 1783-1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009
  19. 19. Bikhchandani S, Hirschleifer D, Welsh I. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as information cascades. Journal of Political Economy. 1992;100:992-1026
  20. 20. Black D. On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy. 1948;56:23-34
  21. 21. Bowles S et al. The Co-Evolution of Individual Behaviors and Social Institutions. Journal of Theoretical Eiology. 2003;223:135-147
  22. 22. Boyd J, Richerson PJ. The Origin and Evolution of Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005
  23. 23. Broodbank C. The Making of the Middle Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013
  24. 24. Burkhart JM, Hrdy SB, van Schaik CP. Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology. 2009;18:175-186
  25. 25. Calvin WH. The ascent of mind. New York: Bantam; 2003
  26. 26. Carothers T. The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy. 2002;13:5-21
  27. 27. Cassidy J. How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2009
  28. 28. Cavallli-Sforza L, Feldman M. Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1981
  29. 29. Chichilnisky G. The topology of fear. Journal of Mathematical Economics. 2009;45:807-816
  30. 30. Chichilnisky G. Avoiding Extinction: Equal Treatment of the Present and the Future, Working Paper. Columbia University; 2009
  31. 31. Chichilinsky G. The foundations of statistics with black swans. Mathematical Social Science. 2010;59:184-192
  32. 32. Chichilinsky G. The topology of change: foundations of statistics with black swans. Forthcoming in Topics in Mathematical Economics: Essays in Honor of J. Marsden, Fields Institute Communication Volume. Providence, Rhode Island: American Math Society; 2014
  33. 33. Chichilinsky G, Eisenberger P. Asteroids: Assessing catastrophic risks. Journal of Probability and Statistics. 2010. Article ID 954750
  34. 34. Clark G. What made Brittania Great? How much of the Rise of Britain to World Dominance by 1850 does the Industrial Revolution explain? In: Rourke KO', Taylor A, editors. Comparative Economic History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Williamson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007
  35. 35. Clark G. A Farewell to Alms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007
  36. 36. Cline W. Global Warming and Agriculture Impact Estimates by Country. Peterson Institute: Washington, DC; 2007
  37. 37. Collier P et al. Climate Change and Africa. Working Paper. Oxford University; 2008
  38. 38. Collier P. Wars, Guns and Votes. New York: Harper; 2009
  39. 39. Collier P. The Plundered Planet. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010
  40. 40. Condorcet N. Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilite des deci- sions rendues a la pluralite des voix. Paris: Imprimerie Royale; 1994 [1785] [Translated in part In: McLean I, Hewitt F, editors. Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing
  41. 41. Condorcet N. Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humaine. Paris: Yves Gravier; 1798
  42. 42. Cooper. Money, Elood and Revolution. Petersfield, UK: Harriman; 2014
  43. 43. Corcos et al. Imitation and contrarian behavior: Hyperbolic bubbles, crashes and chaos. Quantitative Finance. 2002;2:264-281
  44. 44. Darwin C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray; 1859
  45. 45. Darwin C. The Descent of Man. London: John Murray; 1871
  46. 46. Debreu G. Excess demand functions. Journal of Mathematical Economics. 1974;1:15-21
  47. 47. Diamond J. Collapse. London: Penguin; 2011
  48. 48. Deutscher G. The Unfolding of Language. New York: Holt; 2006
  49. 49. Easley D, Kleinberg J. Networks, Crowds and Markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010
  50. 50. Ferguson N. Introduction. In: Ferguson N, editor. Virtual History. London: Picador; 1997
  51. 51. Ferguson N. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the Eritish World Order. London: Penguin Books; 2002
  52. 52. Ferguson N. Civilization. London: Penguin; 2011
  53. 53. Ferguson N. The Great Degeneration. London: Penguin; 2012
  54. 54. Fox J. The Myth of the Rational Market. New York: Harper; 2009
  55. 55. Fukuyama F. The Origins of Political Order. New York: Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2011
  56. 56. Fukuyama F. Political Order and Political Decay. New York: Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2014
  57. 57. Gazzaniga MS. The Ethical Brain. New York: Harper; 2006
  58. 58. Gintis H. Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Eiology. 2000;206:169-179
  59. 59. Greer JM. Dark Age America: Climate Change, Cultural Collapse, and the Hard Future Ahead. Vancouver, Canada: New Society; 2015
  60. 60. Gleick J. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking; 1987
  61. 61. Kurt G. Uber formal unentscheidbare Satze der principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme. Monatschefte fur Mathematik und Physik. 1931;38:173-98 [Translated as On formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems. In: van Heijenoort J, editor. Frege and Godel: Two Fundamental Texts in Mathematical Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]
  62. 62. Golub B, Jackson M. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics. 2010;2:112-149
  63. 63. Gore A. The Assault on Reason. London: Bloomsbury; 2007
  64. 64. Gray J. Enlightenment's Wake. London, Routledge; 1995
  65. 65. Gray J. Endgames. London: Blackwell; 1997
  66. 66. Gray J. False Dawn. London: New Press; 2000
  67. 67. Gribbin J. Alone in the Universe. NewYork: Wiley; 2011
  68. 68. Hamilton W. The genetical evolution of social behavior I and II. Journal of Theoretical Eiology. 1964;7:1-52
  69. 69. Hamilton W. Selfish and spiteful behavior in an evolutionary model. Nature. 1970;228:1218-1220
  70. 70. Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. In: Daly HE, editor. Towards a Steady State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman; 1968 [1973]
  71. 71. Hardin R. Collective action as an agreeable prisons' dilemma'. Behavioral Science. 1971;16:472-481
  72. 72. Hardin R. Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1982
  73. 73. Harper K. The environmental fall of the Roman Empire. Daedalus. Spring; 2016;101-111
  74. 74. Hawken. Drawdown, New York, Penguin; 2017
  75. 75. Hays JD, Imbrie J, Shackleton NJ. Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages. Science. 1976;194(4270):1121-1132
  76. 76. Henrich J et al. Foundations of Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004
  77. 77. Henrich J et al. 'Economic man' in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2005;28:795-855
  78. 78. Hobbes T. Leviathan; or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-wealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil. In: Gaskin, editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009 [1651]
  79. 79. Hrdy SB. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2011
  80. 80. Hsiang. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science Express. 2013. 10.1126
  81. 81. Israel J. Radical Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002
  82. 82. Israel J. Enlightenment Contested. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006
  83. 83. Israel J. Revolution of the Mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2010
  84. 84. Israel J. Revolutionary Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2014
  85. 85. Jacques M. When China Rules the World. London: Penguin; 2009
  86. 86. Jamieson D. Reason in a Dark Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014
  87. 87. Kahneman D. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Ferrar Strauss and Giroux; 2011
  88. 88. Karklins R, Petersen R. Decision calculus of protestors and regime change: Eastern Europe 1989. Journal of Politics. 1993;55:588-614
  89. 89. Kauffman S. Humanity in a Creative Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016
  90. 90. Kennedy P. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Random House; 1987
  91. 91. Keohane R, Nye R. Power and Interdependence. New York: Little Brown; 1977
  92. 92. Keynes JM. Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan; 1921
  93. 93. Keynes JM. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan; 1936
  94. 94. Kindleberger C. The World in Depression 1929-1939. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1973
  95. 95. Kolbert E. The Sixth Extinction. New York: Holt; 2014
  96. 96. Kreps DM et al. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory. 1982;27:245-252
  97. 97. Ladha K. Condorcet's jury theorem, free speech and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science. 1992;36:617-674
  98. 98. Ladha K, Miller G. 'Political discourse, factions and the general will: Correlated voting and Condorcet's jury theorem. In: Schofield N, editor. Collective Decision Making. Boston: Kluwer; 1996
  99. 99. Landemore H. Democratic Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2012
  100. 100. Laudato S. Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis “on Care for our Common Home”. Rome: The Holy See; 2015
  101. 101. Leakey R, Lewin R. The Sixth Extinction. New York: Anchor; 1995
  102. 102. Leakey R. The Origin of Humankind. New York: Basic; 1994
  103. 103. Lohmann S. The dynamics of information cascades. World Politics. 1994;47:42-101
  104. 104. Maddison A. Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
  105. 105. Madison J. Federalist X. In: Rakove J, editor. Madison: Writings. New York: Library Classics; 1999 [1787]
  106. 106. Malthus T. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London; 1798
  107. 107. Johnson J, Mandelbrot B, Hudson R. The (Mis)Behavior of Markets. New York: Perseus; 2004
  108. 108. Mantel R. On the characterization of aggregate excess demand. Journal of Economic Theory. 1974;7:348-353
  109. 109. Margolis H. Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982
  110. 110. McWhorter J. The Power of Eabel. New York: Holt; 2001
  111. 111. Meadows D, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens W. Limits to Growth. New York: Signet; 1972
  112. 112. Miller G, Schofield N. Activists and partisan realignment in the U.S. American Political Science Review. 2003;97:245-260
  113. 113. Miller G, Schofield N. The transformation of the republican and democratic party coalitions in the United States. Perspectives on Politics. 2008;6:433-450
  114. 114. Minsky H. John Maynard Keynes. New York: Columbia University Press; 1975
  115. 115. Minsky H. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1986
  116. 116. Mokyr J. The intellectual origins of modern economic growth. Journal of Economic History. 2005;65:285-351
  117. 117. Mokyr J. The Enlightened Economy: An Economic History of Eritain 1700-1850. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2010
  118. 118. Mokyr J, Nye VC. Distributional coalitions, the industrial revolution, and the origins of economic growth in Britain. Southern Economic Journal. 2007;74:50-70
  119. 119. Morris I. Why the West Rules. New York: Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2010
  120. 120. Nagel T. Mind and Cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012
  121. 121. Nordhaus. Climate Casino. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2013
  122. 122. North DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990
  123. 123. North DC, Weingast BR. Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth century England. Journal of Economic History. 1989;49:803-832
  124. 124. North DC, Wallis B, Weingast BR. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009
  125. 125. Nowak M. Supercooperators. New York: Free Press; 2011
  126. 126. Ormerod P. Butterfly Economics. New York: Basic; 2001
  127. 127. Orestes N, Conway E. The Collapse of Western Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014
  128. 128. Pagden A. The Enlightenment. New York: Random; 2013
  129. 129. Parfit D. On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011
  130. 130. Parker G. Global Crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2013
  131. 131. Penn E. A model of far-sighted voting. American Journal of Political Science. 2009;53:36-54
  132. 132. Penrose R. The Emperor's New Mind. London: Oxford University Press; 1989
  133. 133. Piketty T. Capital. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2014
  134. 134. Putnam RD, Campbell DE. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2010
  135. 135. Rae D. Decision rules and individual values in constitutional choice. American Political Science Review. 1969;63:40-56
  136. 136. Rees M. Our Cosmic Habitat. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2001
  137. 137. Reynolds. Energy Civilization. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Chena Publisher; 2011
  138. 138. Saari D. The aggregated excess demand function and other aggregation procedures. Economic Theory. 1992;2:359-388
  139. 139. Saari D. Chaotic exploration of aggregation procedures. SIAM Review. 1995;37(1):37-52
  140. 140. Sagan C, Drake F. The search for extra terrestial intelligence. Scientific American. 1975;232:80-89
  141. 141. Searl J. Minds brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1980;3:417-457
  142. 142. Schofield N. Is majority rule special? In: Niemi RG, Weisberg HF, editors. Probability Models of Collective Decision-Making. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.; 1972
  143. 143. Schofield N. Ethical decision rules for uncertain voters. British Journal of Political Science. 1972;2:193-207
  144. 144. Schofield N. Evolution of the constitution. British Journal of Political Science. 2002;32:1-20
  145. 145. Schofield N. Madison and the founding of the two party system in the US. In: Kernel S, editor. James Madison: The Theory and Practise of Republican Government. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2002. pp. 302-327
  146. 146. Schofield N. Is the political economy stable or chaotic? Czech Economic Review. 2011;5:76-93
  147. 147. Schofield N, Malthus. Climate change and collapse. Working Paper. Saint Louis: Washington University; 2018
  148. 148. Schofield N, Gallego M. Leadership or Chaos. Berlin: Springer; 2011
  149. 149. Scharf C. The Copernicus Complex. New York: Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2014
  150. 150. Schweitzer F et al. Economic networks: The new challenges. Science. 2009;325:422-425
  151. 151. Sen A. Poverty and Famines. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1982
  152. 152. Shiller R. The New Financial Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003
  153. 153. Shiller R. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005
  154. 154. Smale S. Structurally stable systems are not dense. American Journal of Mathematics. 1966;88:491-496
  155. 155. Smith A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund; 1984 [1759]
  156. 156. Sperber J. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life. New York: Liveright; 2011
  157. 157. Smolin L. The Trouble with Physics. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 2007
  158. 158. Sonnenschein H. Do Walras' identity and continuity chracterize the class of excess demand functions. Journal of Economic Theory. 1973;6:345-354
  159. 159. Stringer C. Lone Survivors. New York: St. Martins; 2013
  160. 160. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007
  161. 161. Stern N. The Global Deal. New York: Public Affairs; 2009
  162. 162. Stern N. Why Are We Waiting: The Logic Urgency and Promise of Tackling Climate Change. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2015
  163. 163. Sunstein CR. A Constitution of Many Minds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009
  164. 164. Sunstein CR. Going to Extremes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011
  165. 165. Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor; 2005
  166. 166. Tainter JA, Renfrew C. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988
  167. 167. Taleb NN. The Elack Swan. New York: Random; 2007
  168. 168. Taleb NN, Blyth M. The black swan of Cairo. Foreign Affairs. 2011;90(3):33-39
  169. 169. Taylor M. Anarchy and Cooperation. London: Wiley; 1976
  170. 170. Taylor M. Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982
  171. 171. Tegmark M. The mathematical universe. Foundations of Physics. 2008;38:101-150
  172. 172. Tegmark M. Our Mathematical Universe. New York: Random House; 2014
  173. 173. Trivers R. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Etiology. 1971;46:35-56
  174. 174. Trivers R. Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings; 1985
  175. 175. Turing A. On computable numbers with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 1937;42:230-265 [Reprinted in Copeland J. The Essential Turing. Oxford: The Clarendon Press]
  176. 176. Vogel K. Big Money. New York: Public Affairs; 2014
  177. 177. Wallace AR. Natural Selection. New York: Classics US; 1898
  178. 178. Waltham D. Lucky Planet. New York: Basic; 2014
  179. 179. Weitzman M. Additive damages, fat-tailed climate dynamics, and uncertain discounting. Economics. 2009;3:1-22
  180. 180. Wells S. Pandora's Seed. New York: Random House; 2011
  181. 181. Wilson EO. The Meaning of Human Existence. New York: Norton; 2014
  182. 182. White T et al. Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science. 2009;326:65-86
  183. 183. Wolf M. The Shifts and the Shocks. New York: Penguin; 2014
  184. 184. Yanofsky NS. The Outer Limits of Reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013
  185. 185. Zeeman EC. Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers, 1972-77. New York: Addison Wesley; 1977
  186. 186. Zhang. Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2007;104(49):19214-19219
  187. 187. Keohane R. After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1984

Notes

  • Chaotic phenomena can, of course, have profound consequences. A chaotic event, an asteroid collision, may have led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
  • See the discussion on theories of the solar system in Peterson (1993).
  • Schofield [147] offers the example of the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire.

Written By

Norman Schofield

Submitted: 08 March 2018 Reviewed: 09 April 2018 Published: 28 November 2018