Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This handout looks at the implications of complexity theory for development. It draw on a new online lecture by
Owen Barder, based on his Kapuscinski Lecture in May 2012. Barder explains how complexity science, which
is belatedly getting more attention from mainstream economists, gives a new perspective to the meaning of
development. (Owen Barder 8/16/12)
View presentation
The Nobel-prize winning economist Amartya Sen explains what is meant by development. Traditional welfare
economics had focused on incomes as the main measure of well-being until his ground-breaking work in the
1980's which showed that poverty involved a wider range of deprivations in health, education and living
standards which were not captured by income alone. His capabilities approach led to introduction of the UN
Human Development Index, and subsequently the Multidimensional Poverty Index, both of which aim to
measure development in this broader sense. Then in 1999 Sen moved the goalposts again with his argument that
freedoms constitute not only the means but the ends in development.
Sen's view is now widely accepted: development must be judged by its impact on people, not only by changes
in their income but more generally in terms of their choices, capabilities and freedoms; and we should be
concerned about the distribution of these improvements, not just the simple average for a society.
But to define development as an improvement in people's well-being does not do justice to what the term means
to most of us. Development also carries a connotation of lasting change. Providing a person with a bed net or a
water pump can often be an excellent, cost-effective way to improve her well-being, but if the improvement
goes away when we stop providing the bed net or pump, we would not normally describe that as development.
This suggests that development consists of more than improvements in the well-being of citizens, even broadly
defined: it also conveys something about the capacity of economic, political and social systems to provide the
circumstances for that well-being on a sustainable, long-term basis.
Mainstream economics has had a difficult time explaining how economic and social systems evolve to create
this capacity; and, in particular, our economic models have struggled to explain why some countries have
experienced rapid economic growth while others have not. In part this is because economists have generally
stuck to models which can easily be solved mathematically. In the meantime, there has been a growing
movement in physics, biology and some other social sciences, often called complexity science. Some
economists notably Eric Beinhocker and Tim Harford have started to make a compelling case for bringing
these ideas more centrally into our analysis of economic and social systems. However, there has so far been
very little work specifically on how complexity theory might be useful in development economics and policy.
1
circumstances as they do so. This presentation explains how these networks of adaptive agents interact with
each other to create a complex adaptive system of the kind studied in biology and physics.
The mainstream economics profession has been slow to take up these ideas, but fortunately scientists have been
studying complex adaptive systems for at least thirty years and they have made considerable progress in
describing their properties. Despite the huge diversity of these systems in nature, they have some important
characteristics in common, by virtue of their underlying mathematics. There are good theoretical and empirical
reasons for thinking that economic and social systems might share these characteristics, and the real-world
trajectories of economic and social systems appear to fit the properties of complex adaptive systems better
than they fit the simple, linear models of mainstream economics.
This view of development as an emergent property of a system fits with the common-sense definition of
development described earlier. Development is more than improvements in peoples well-being: it also
describes the capacity of the system to provide the circumstances for that continued well-being. Development
is a characteristic of the system; sustained improvements in individual well-being are a yardstick by which it is
judged.
This has important implications for development policy, both for developing countries themselves wishing to
put their economy and society onto a path of faster development, and for outsiders who want to help that
process. We are at an early stage of exploring those implications.
Activity
1. What is the main measure of development, especially on well-being mentioned by Amartya Sen which the
traditional welfare economics have focused on?
2. What is his (Sens) widely accepted view on the judgment of development as opposed to the answer to
question one above?
2
3. Why does Sen considers examples like providing bed-nets, and pumps are not developments?
4. What are the two models as mentioned that are used to measure developments? What is their difference?
5. Why is the author describing development as, a consequence of the way that the different parts of the
system interact with each other?
6. Paraphrase the concluding paragraph on the view of development and state what development really is?
Do some additional readings on the definitions of development and human development. Learn
more for yourself.
3
4