Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 120 references

In large complex economies, equilibrium is the exception: excess volatility, crises and inequality can arise endogenously from out-of-equilibrium dynamics without large external shocks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 01:40 UTC pith:CI2EV3TD

load-bearing objection Clean synthesis of non-equilibrium mechanisms into three flavours; the burden-of-proof claim is a research-program statement, not a settled reallocation of proof. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09620 v1 pith:CI2EV3TD submitted 2026-07-10 econ.TH cond-mat.dis-nn

Non-Equilibrium Economics: A Physicist's Point of View

Jean-Philippe Bouchaud This is my paper
classification econ.TH cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords non-equilibrium economicsself-organized criticalityexcess volatilityendogenous crisesdisequilibrium dynamicsproduction networksmultiple equilibriaagent-based models
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that the equilibrium concept at the heart of mainstream economics is often the wrong default for large, interacting economies. Drawing on stylized toy models, it shows how excess volatility, endogenous crises, inflation swells and persistent inequalities can emerge from genuine out-of-equilibrium dynamics rather than from a stream of big external shocks. Three recurring mechanisms drive the story: trapping among many history-dependent states; failure of learning or adjustment to reach equilibrium, producing oscillations or chaos; and spontaneous drift toward fragile, marginally stable critical points. The models are phenomenological scenarios, not calibrated forecasts, and the author is explicit that there is still no smoking-gun discrimination. The stake is practical: if economies generically live near dark corners, policy and modelling should treat disequilibrium and resilience as central rather than as temporary frictions around a reliable equilibrium.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that equilibrium is likely the exception rather than the rule in large, complex, interacting economic systems. Excess volatility, endogenous crises and crashes, inflation swells and persistent inequalities can all emerge naturally from genuinely out-of-equilibrium dynamics via three generic mechanisms—multiplicity and history-dependent trapping, dynamical inaccessibility leading to oscillations and chaos, and self-organized criticality—without large exogenous shocks. The burden of proof, the author contends, should therefore lie with the equilibrium camp.

What carries the argument

Three flavours of out-of-equilibrium behaviour organise the argument: (A) multiplicity and self-trapping in history-dependent equilibria; (B) non-convergence into perpetual oscillations or chaos even when an equilibrium exists; (C) self-organized criticality, where efficiency-seeking pushes the system to a fragile edge where small shocks trigger fat-tailed avalanches. These mechanisms structure the toy models (social-choice bistability, habit self-trapping, reflexive learning, complex games, firm-network adjustment and rewiring, inventory and delay criticality) and underwrite the claim that genericity trumps knife-edge equilibrium theorems.

Load-bearing premise

That the qualitative non-equilibrium behaviour of these deliberately simplified toy models is generic enough to transfer to real economies, even though the paper itself says there is still no smoking-gun empirical test.

What would settle it

If large price moves and business-cycle swings were shown to be overwhelmingly tied to identifiable external news and productivity shocks, with no power-law avalanche statistics, near-critical feedback, long memory, or clear history-dependent hysteresis in aggregate outcomes, the claim that non-equilibrium mechanisms are a primary source of excess volatility would be undercut.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any welfare or policy objective should include an explicit resilience penalty against small perturbations, parameter uncertainty and tail events, accepting higher normal-time costs to stay off cliff edges.
  • Two routes to excess volatility make different empirical predictions: far-from-equilibrium chaos need not produce power laws, while self-organized criticality should produce fat tails and long-range correlations.
  • In worlds of self-fulfilling confidence and bad equilibria, narratives and modest coordination devices can act as policy instruments, not mere communication.
  • Decentralized rewiring and learning generically leave economies in history-dependent, suboptimal configurations that exist only as theoretical optima agents cannot reach.
  • Inequality can appear as an emergent symptom of market failure under permanent disagreement or slow-adapting production, not only as an assumed distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If network-mediated avalanches dominate, stress tests and buffers that treat agents as independent systematically understate systemic risk.
  • Existing near-unity branching-ratio and endogeneity estimates in price and inflation data already point toward criticality; parallel tests on production networks and price-resetting would be the cleanest next discrimination.
  • Supplier diversification and mandatory buffers function as design choices that can move an economy off the fragility boundary, opening industrial-policy levers beyond aggregate demand management.
  • Treating comparative statics after shocks as the default forecasting tool becomes hard to justify if history, path dependence and marginal stability are the generic regime.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review argues that economic equilibrium is often dynamically irrelevant in large interacting systems. Drawing on stylized models (RFIM restaurant/confidence, habit formation, self-fulfilling prophecies, the SK game, CES firm networks with tâtonnement and rewiring, inventory and delay SOC), it organizes non-equilibrium behaviour into three mechanisms: (A) multiplicity and history-dependent trapping, (B) dynamical inaccessibility leading to oscillations/chaos, and (C) self-organized criticality. Excess volatility, endogenous crises, inflation swells and inequality are presented as generic out-of-equilibrium outcomes without large exogenous shocks. The author repeatedly labels the models as phenomenological scenarios without a smoking gun, yet contends that the burden of proof should lie with the equilibrium camp.

Significance. The paper is a clear, well-structured synthesis that imports a useful physics taxonomy (multiplicity/trapping, non-convergence, SOC) into economics and revisits the older disequilibrium tradition with modern ABM and network tools. Strengths include the explicit three-flavour classification, the table of mechanisms and fingerprints in Sec. 7, the honest admission of no smoking gun, and concrete policy discussion of resilience–efficiency trade-offs. If the genericity claim holds, it would reframe excess-volatility and small-shocks puzzles as endogenous phenomena and shift modelling priorities toward dynamics and robustness. Even as a research program rather than a settled reallocation of proof, it is a valuable perspective piece for econ.TH and complexity economics.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract and Sec. 7: the central claim has two parts—(i) non-equilibrium mechanisms can generate excess volatility/crises/inequality without large shocks, and (ii) therefore the burden of proof should lie with the equilibrium camp. Part (i) is supported by carefully labelled toy scenarios; part (ii) requires a transfer criterion under which real economies are forced into regimes (A)–(C) rather than remaining near a unique, rapidly reached equilibrium (e.g., high substitutability, strong price adjustment, diversified buffers with R0 well below 1). No such criterion is stated. Without it, (ii) is a rhetorical reallocation rather than a demonstrated consequence of genericity. The manuscript should either supply falsifiable conditions that would force one of the three flavours, or soften the burden-of-proof language to match the admitted absence of a smoking gun.
  2. Sec. 6 and Sec. 5.2: the SOC route relies on the axiom that competitive efficiency pressure systematically erodes buffers (inventories κ, time buffers B, liquidity spreads) until the system sits near marginal stability. This is stated as compelling and Minsky-like, but it is not derived from the models; it is an extra behavioural/evolutionary assumption. If buffers are regulated, diversified, or costly to cut, the system can remain safely subcritical. The paper should either derive the erosion mechanism more tightly or present it as a conjecture whose empirical status is open, and discuss conditions under which efficiency pressure does not drive R0 to 1.
  3. Sec. 7 table and empirical discrimination: the paper correctly notes that flavours (B) and (C) make different statistical predictions (chaos far from criticality need not produce power laws or long memory; SOC should). Yet the discussion of fingerprints (news-less jumps, Hawkes endogeneity near 1, inflation branching R0≈0.9) remains programmatic. For a review that reassigns the burden of proof, at least one concrete, currently testable discrimination protocol—e.g., how to separate endogenous avalanche statistics from exogenous shock amplification in a named dataset—should be specified so that the claim is not left entirely to future work.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sec. 5.1–5.2: the CES production function is introduced with parameter q; the text states Cobb–Douglas as q o∞ and Leontief as q o0+. Standard CES conventions often use a different elasticity parameter; a one-sentence clarification of the mapping to the usual σ would help non-physics readers.
  2. Sec. 2: the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck marginal-stability argument (variance and relaxation time ~1/κ) is clear; a brief pointer to the multi-dimensional case with least-stable eigenvalue −κ⋆ would make the later firm-network critical-slowing claims easier to track.
  3. References: Colon & Bouchaud rewiring appears twice ([30] and [99]); consolidate. arXiv preprints cited as 2026 (e.g. Martin et al.) should be checked for final citation form if available.
  4. Sec. 3.1 vs sunspot literature: the contrast with local indeterminacy is useful; a short explicit statement that the RFIM multiplicity is global bistability selected by hysteresis, not continuum of sunspot equilibria, would prevent misreading by macro readers.
  5. Notation: filling rate φ, social strength J, learning rate λ, inverse temperature β, CES q, inventory κ, buffer B appear across sections; a small notation table or consistent first-use reminders would improve readability for a review.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Low circularity: a phenomenological review of stylized models (many self-authored) used as existence proofs of non-equilibrium mechanisms, with explicit no-smoking-gun caveat and no fitted predictions or definitional reductions of claims.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Sec. 1; Secs. 3–6 (esp. 4.3 SK game, 5.3–5.4 firm networks, 6 SOC)]
    "Drawing on a series of stylized “toy” models, I show how excess volatility, endogenous crises and crashes, inflation swells and persistent inequalities can all emerge naturally from genuinely out-of-equilibrium dynamics... I stress that these are phenomenological scenarios rather than calibrated theories: there is, at this stage, no “smoking gun”."

    Most concrete illustrations of the three generic mechanisms (multiplicity/trapping, dynamical inaccessibility, SOC) are the author's own prior models (e.g. Garnier-Brun–Benzaquen–Bouchaud SK game; Dessertaine–Moran–Benzaquen–Bouchaud tâtonnement; Colon–Bouchaud rewiring; Martin–Moran–Panja–Bouchaud inventories). These supply the load-bearing existence proofs for the claim that non-equilibrium dynamics generically produce the listed phenomena. The circularity is mild: the models are independent mathematical constructions, not data fits or definitional tautologies, and the paper does not claim they are calibrated truths of real economies.

full rationale

The paper is a review arguing that equilibrium is generically exceptional in complex economies, supported by three flavours of out-of-equilibrium behaviour illustrated via toy models. It does not fit free parameters to data and then call the fit a prediction, nor redefine equilibrium failure as success by construction, nor import a uniqueness theorem that forces its conclusion. The models (RFIM restaurant, habit utility, SK game, tâtonnement networks, rewiring, inventory/delay SOC) are constructed to exhibit multiplicity, non-convergence or marginal stability under stated interaction/learning rules; their phenomenology follows from those rules rather than being smuggled back as independent evidence. The author repeatedly labels them phenomenological scenarios with no smoking gun (Abstract; Sec. 1; Sec. 7), so the central inference (burden of proof on the equilibrium camp) is methodological rather than a claimed derivation from data. Self-citations to the author's prior models are numerous and supply most concrete examples, but they function as existence proofs of mechanisms, not as load-bearing uniqueness results or unverified external facts that close a circular loop. No step reduces a claimed first-principles prediction to its own inputs by definition. Score 2 reflects only the mild self-citation concentration typical of a research-program review; the derivation chain remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

As a perspective paper, the central claim rests less on fitted constants than on modeling axioms imported from statistical physics and stylized agent-based economics: that large interacting systems generically exhibit multiplicity, non-convergence, or SOC; that myopic tâtonnement/rewiring/learning rules are economically relevant; and that qualitative toy-model phenomenology transfers to real economies. Free parameters appear inside the reviewed models (interaction strength J, learning rate λ, inventory buffer κ, reaction speeds) but are not fitted here to claim a quantitative prediction. Invented entities are mostly named mechanisms and model classes rather than new physical objects.

free parameters (6)
  • Social interaction strength J (RFIM restaurant / confidence models)
    Controls bistability and hysteresis; large J is required for multiplicity and cliff-edge fragility in Sec. 3.
  • Belief discount / learning rate λ and error rate ε (self-fulfilling prophecy model)
    Set the rarity of endogenous reversals ~λ e^{-A/λ} and the quasi-nonergodic regime in Sec. 4.1.
  • Inverse temperature / learning intensity β and reciprocity structure of J_ij (SK game)
    Determine trapping, chaos, aging, and number of Nash-like states in Sec. 4.3.
  • CES substitutability q and network heterogeneity (firm networks)
    Lower q and larger heterogeneity drive Hawkins–Simon feasibility failure and May-like instability in Sec. 5.2.
  • Tâtonnement reaction speeds and goods perishability
    Select collapse, slow equilibration, or endogenous cycles/chaos in Sec. 5.3.
  • Inventory buffer κ / time buffer B and shock amplitude σ
    Locate the resilient-to-fragile boundary and avalanche regime in Sec. 6.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Existence of an economic equilibrium is not sufficient for relevance; dynamical attainability on economic timescales is required.
    Stated as the central open problem in Sec. 1–2; underpins the entire critique of comparative statics.
  • domain assumption Large complex interacting systems generically display multiplicity/trapping, non-convergence, or self-organized criticality rather than unique fast equilibration.
    Imported from statistical physics (glasses, random neural nets, SOC) and used as the organizing conjecture of Sec. 2.
  • domain assumption Agents use myopic, adaptive, or reinforcement-learning rules (tâtonnement, habit reinforcement, Sato–Crutchfield) rather than instantaneous rational expectations.
    Core modeling choice in Secs. 3–5; without it, dynamical inaccessibility claims do not arise.
  • domain assumption Production networks with limited substitutability (CES/Leontief) and quantity constraints are more realistic than pure Cobb–Douglas full substitutability.
    Used in Sec. 5.2–5.3 and Sec. 6 to obtain feasibility failure and cascade amplification.
  • ad hoc to paper Competitive efficiency pressure systematically erodes buffers (inventories, time margins, liquidity spreads), driving systems toward marginal stability.
    Minsky-style SOC mechanism in Sec. 6; plausible but not derived from micro data in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Qualitative phenomenology of stylized toy models is informative about real economies even without calibration or smoking-gun tests.
    Explicit methodological stance in Abstract and Sec. 7; load-bearing for the burden-of-proof claim.
invented entities (3)
  • Three-flavour taxonomy of out-of-equilibrium economic behaviour (A multiplicity/trapping, B non-convergence, C SOC) no independent evidence
    purpose: Organize disparate models and map them to distinct empirical fingerprints.
    The taxonomy is the paper's main conceptual contribution; mechanisms themselves preexist in the cited literature.
  • SK game (Sherrington–Kirkpatrick game) as a model of radical complexity no independent evidence
    purpose: Show unlearnability, exponential Nash-like states, chaos, and aging in a static complex game.
    Introduced in cited prior work [25]; used here as a capstone illustration, not newly derived.
  • Timeliness criticality / delay-propagation critical buffer B_c no independent evidence
    purpose: Show that efficiency-driven buffer cutting produces delay avalanches analogous to inventory SOC.
    From cited prior work [40,41]; provides a concrete SOC face but no new independent measurement here.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25048 in / 3876 out tokens · 35243 ms · 2026-07-13T01:40:35.122551+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Financial and economic history is strewn with bubbles and crashes, booms and busts, crises and upheavals of all sorts. Understanding the origin of these events is arguably one of the most important problems in economic theory: are economies intrinsically unstable, and can one ``stabilize unstable economies''? In this review I argue, from a physicist's vantage point, that the concept of equilibrium -- so central to mainstream economic thinking -- is likely to be the exception rather than the rule in large, complex, interacting systems. Drawing on a series of stylized ``toy'' models, I show how excess volatility, endogenous crises and crashes, inflation swells and persistent inequalities can all emerge naturally from genuinely out-of-equilibrium dynamics, without invoking large exogenous shocks. Three generic mechanisms recur throughout: trapping in a multiplicity of history-dependent equilibria; the impossibility of dynamically reaching equilibrium, leading to oscillations and chaos; and the spontaneous evolution towards fragile, marginally stable states -- the self-organized criticality paradigm. I stress that these are phenomenological scenarios rather than calibrated theories: there is, at this stage, no ``smoking gun''. But the burden of proof, I contend, should be on the equilibrium camp.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Routledge, 2015

    Hyman P Minsky.Can “it” happen again?: essays on instability and finance. Routledge, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    McGraw- Hill New York, 2008

    Hyman P Minsky and Henry Kaufman.Stabilizing an unstable economy, volume 1. McGraw- Hill New York, 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    John H Cochrane. Shocks. InCarnegie-Rochester Conference series on public policy, volume 41, pages 295–364. Elsevier, 1994

    1994

  4. [4]

    Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in divi- dends?American Economic Review, 7:421, 1981

    Robert J Shiller. Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in divi- dends?American Economic Review, 7:421, 1981

    1981

  5. [5]

    The volatility of stock market prices.Science, 235:4784, 1987

    Robert J Shiller. The volatility of stock market prices.Science, 235:4784, 1987

    1987

  6. [6]

    The present-value relation: Tests based on implied variance bounds.Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pages 555–574, 1981

    Stephen F LeRoy and Richard D Porter. The present-value relation: Tests based on implied variance bounds.Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pages 555–574, 1981

    1981

  7. [7]

    David M Cutler, James M Poterba, and Lawrence H Summers.What moves stock prices?, volume

  8. [8]

    National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988

    1988

  9. [9]

    Stock price jumps: news and volume play a minor role.Wilmott Magazine, 46, 2008

    Armand Joulin, Augustin Lefevre, Daniel Grunberg, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Stock price jumps: news and volume play a minor role.Wilmott Magazine, 46, 2008

    2008

  10. [10]

    Exogenous and en- dogenous price jumps belong to different dynamical classes.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2022(2):023403, 2022

    Riccardo Marcaccioli, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Michael Benzaquen. Exogenous and en- dogenous price jumps belong to different dynamical classes.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2022(2):023403, 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    B. S. Bernanke, M. Gertler, and S. Gilchrist. The financial accelerator and the flight to quality. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78:1–15, May 1996

    1996

  12. [12]

    Princeton University Press, 2015

    Jordi Gal ´ı.Monetary policy, inflation, and the business cycle: an introduction to the new Key- nesian framework and its applications. Princeton University Press, 2015. 16

    2015

  13. [13]

    Where danger lurks.Finance & Development, 51(3):28–31, 2014

    Olivier Blanchard. Where danger lurks.Finance & Development, 51(3):28–31, 2014

    2014

  14. [14]

    Equations vs

    Marco Pangallo. Equations vs. maps: complexity, equilibrium, disequilibrium.Available at SSRN 4971148, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    The net- work origins of aggregate fluctuations.Econometrica, 80(5):1977–2016, 2012

    Daron Acemoglu, Vasco M Carvalho, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. The net- work origins of aggregate fluctuations.Econometrica, 80(5):1977–2016, 2012

    1977

  16. [16]

    How markets slowly digest changes in supply and demand

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, J Doyne Farmer, and Fabrizio Lillo. How markets slowly digest changes in supply and demand. InHandbook of financial markets: dynamics and evolution, pages 57–

  17. [17]

    Anomalous price impact and the critical nature of liquidity in financial markets

    Bence T ´oth, Yves Lemperiere, Cyril Deremble, Joachim De Lataillade, Julien Kockelkoren, and J-P Bouchaud. Anomalous price impact and the critical nature of liquidity in financial markets. Physical Review X, 1(2):021006, 2011

    2011

  18. [18]

    Cambridge University Press, 2018

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Julius Bonart, Jonathan Donier, and Martin Gould.Trades, quotes and prices: financial markets under the microscope. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  19. [19]

    In search of the origins of financial fluctuations: The inelastic markets hypothesis

    Xavier Gabaix and Ralph SJ Koijen. In search of the origins of financial fluctuations: The inelastic markets hypothesis. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    The macroeconomic impact of microeconomic shocks: Beyond hulten’s theorem.Econometrica, 87(4):1155–1203, 2019

    David Rezza Baqaee and Emmanuel Farhi. The macroeconomic impact of microeconomic shocks: Beyond hulten’s theorem.Econometrica, 87(4):1155–1203, 2019

    2019

  21. [21]

    Networks and economic fragility.Annual Review of Economics, 14(1):665–696, 2022

    Matthew Elliott and Benjamin Golub. Networks and economic fragility.Annual Review of Economics, 14(1):665–696, 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Learning as a rational foundation for macroeconomics and finance

    George W Evans and Seppo Honkapohja. Learning as a rational foundation for macroeconomics and finance. InRethinking expectations: The way forward for macroeconomics. Princeton Uni- versity Press Princeton, NJ, 2013

    2013

  23. [23]

    Convergence of least squares learning mechanisms in self-referential linear stochastic models.Journal of Economic theory, 48(2):337–368, 1989

    Albert Marcet and Thomas J Sargent. Convergence of least squares learning mechanisms in self-referential linear stochastic models.Journal of Economic theory, 48(2):337–368, 1989

    1989

  24. [24]

    A behavioral model of rational choice.The quarterly journal of economics, pages 99–118, 1955

    Herbert A Simon. A behavioral model of rational choice.The quarterly journal of economics, pages 99–118, 1955

    1955

  25. [25]

    Complex dynamics in learning complicated games.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(4):1232–1236, 2013

    Tobias Galla and J Doyne Farmer. Complex dynamics in learning complicated games.Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(4):1232–1236, 2013

    2013

  26. [26]

    satisficing

    J ´erˆome Garnier-Brun, Michael Benzaquen, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Unlearnable games and “satisficing” decisions: A simple model for a complex world.Phys. Rev. X, 14:021039, Jun 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Behavioral and experimental macroeconomics and policy analysis: A complex systems approach.Journal of Economic Literature, 59(1):149–219, 2021

    Cars Hommes. Behavioral and experimental macroeconomics and policy analysis: A complex systems approach.Journal of Economic Literature, 59(1):149–219, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    Out-of- equilibrium dynamics and excess volatility in firm networks.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 138:104362, 2022

    Th ´eo Dessertaine, Jos ´e Moran, Michael Benzaquen, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Out-of- equilibrium dynamics and excess volatility in firm networks.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 138:104362, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Endogenous liquidity crises

    Antoine Fosset, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Michael Benzaquen. Endogenous liquidity crises. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2020(6):063401, 2020. 17

    2020

  30. [30]

    Self-fulfilling prophecies, quasi nonergodicity, and wealth inequality.Journal of Political Economy, 131(4):000–000, 2023

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud and Roger EA Farmer. Self-fulfilling prophecies, quasi nonergodicity, and wealth inequality.Journal of Political Economy, 131(4):000–000, 2023

    2023

  31. [32]

    The economy needs agent-based modelling.Nature, 460(7256):685–686, 2009

    J Doyne Farmer and Duncan Foley. The economy needs agent-based modelling.Nature, 460(7256):685–686, 2009

    2009

  32. [33]

    More is different

    Giovanni Dosi and Andrea Roventini. More is different... and complex! the case for agent-based macroeconomics.Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29:1–37, 2019

    2019

  33. [34]

    Yale University Press, 2024

    J Doyne Farmer.Making Sense of Chaos: A Better Economics for a Better World. Yale University Press, 2024

    2024

  34. [35]

    Oxford University Press, 2023

    Giovanni Dosi.The Foundations of Complex Evolving Economies: Part One: Innovation, Or- ganization, and Industrial Dynamics. Oxford University Press, 2023

    2023

  35. [36]

    Production networks: A primer.Annual Review of Economics, 11:635–663, 2019

    Vasco M Carvalho and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. Production networks: A primer.Annual Review of Economics, 11:635–663, 2019

    2019

  36. [37]

    Process and emergence in the economy

    W Brian Arthur, Steven N Durlauf, and David A Lane. Process and emergence in the economy. Complexity and the Economy, pages 89–102, 2015

    2015

  37. [38]

    Self-organized criticality and economic fluctuations

    Jose A Scheinkman and Michael Woodford. Self-organized criticality and economic fluctuations. The American Economic Review, 84(2):417–421, 1994

    1994

  38. [39]

    Crises and collective socio-economic phenomena: simple models and challenges.Journal of Statistical Physics, 151(3):567–606, 2013

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Crises and collective socio-economic phenomena: simple models and challenges.Journal of Statistical Physics, 151(3):567–606, 2013

    2013

  39. [40]

    Endogenous crisis waves: stochastic model with synchronized collective behavior.Physical review letters, 114(8):088701, 2015

    Stanislao Gualdi, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Giulia Cencetti, Marco Tarzia, and Francesco Zam- poni. Endogenous crisis waves: stochastic model with synchronized collective behavior.Physical review letters, 114(8):088701, 2015

    2015

  40. [41]

    Pijpers, Utz Weitzel, Debabrata Panja, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud

    Jos ´e Moran, Matthijs Romeijnders, Pierre Le Doussal, Frank P. Pijpers, Utz Weitzel, Debabrata Panja, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Timeliness criticality in complex systems.Nature Physics, 2024

    2024

  41. [42]

    Crit- ical fragility in sociotechnical systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(9):e2415139122, 2025

    Jos ´e Moran, Frank P Pijpers, Utz Weitzel, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Debabrata Panja. Crit- ical fragility in sociotechnical systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(9):e2415139122, 2025

    2025

  42. [43]

    By force of habit: Self-trapping in a dynamical utility landscape.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 30(5):053123, 2020

    Jos ´e Moran, Antoine Fosset, Davide Luzzati, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Michael Benzaquen. By force of habit: Self-trapping in a dynamical utility landscape.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 30(5):053123, 2020

    2020

  43. [44]

    Confidence collapse in a multihousehold, self-reflexive dsge model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17):9244–9249, 2020

    Federico Guglielmo Morelli, Michael Benzaquen, Marco Tarzia, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Confidence collapse in a multihousehold, self-reflexive dsge model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(17):9244–9249, 2020

    2020

  44. [45]

    Animal spirits and monetary policy.Economic theory, 47(2):423–457, 2011

    Paul De Grauwe. Animal spirits and monetary policy.Economic theory, 47(2):423–457, 2011

    2011

  45. [46]

    Reviving the limit cycle view of macroeco- nomic fluctuations

    Paul Beaudry, Dana Galizia, Franck Portier, et al. Reviving the limit cycle view of macroeco- nomic fluctuations. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. 18

    2015

  46. [47]

    Resilient-to-fragile transition and excess volatility in supply chain networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20450, 2026

    David Martin, Jos ´e Moran, Debabrata Panja, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Resilient-to-fragile transition and excess volatility in supply chain networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20450, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [48]

    Macroeconomic fluctuations as emergent be- havior when agents interact and accumulate

    Franck Portier, Paul Beaudry, and Dana Galizia. Macroeconomic fluctuations as emergent be- havior when agents interact and accumulate. InThe economy as a complex evolving system. Santa Fe Institute Press (SFI), 2026

    2026

  48. [49]

    Disequilibrium foundations of equilibrium economics.Cambridge Books, 1989

    Franklin M Fisher. Disequilibrium foundations of equilibrium economics.Cambridge Books, 1989

    1989

  49. [50]

    Robert W. Clower. The Keynesian counter-revolution: A theoretical appraisal. In F. H. Hahn and F. P. R. Brechling, editors,The Theory of Interest Rates, pages 103–125. Macmillan, London, 1965

    1965

  50. [51]

    Oxford University Press, New York, 1968

    Axel Leijonhufvud.On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes: A Study in Mone- tary Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, 1968

    1968

  51. [52]

    A general disequilibrium model of income and em- ployment.The American Economic Review, 61(1):82–93, 1971

    Robert J Barro and Herschel I Grossman. A general disequilibrium model of income and em- ployment.The American Economic Review, 61(1):82–93, 1971

    1971

  52. [53]

    Neo-keynesian disequilibrium theory in a monetary economy.The Review of Economic Studies, 42(4):503–523, 1975

    Jean-Pascal B ´enassy. Neo-keynesian disequilibrium theory in a monetary economy.The Review of Economic Studies, 42(4):503–523, 1975

    1975

  53. [54]

    Basil Blackwell, Oxford,

    Edmond Malinvaud.The Theory of Unemployment Reconsidered. Basil Blackwell, Oxford,

  54. [55]

    Yrj ¨o Jahnsson Lectures

  55. [56]

    Backhouse and Mauro Boianovsky.Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956–2003

    Roger E. Backhouse and Mauro Boianovsky.Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956–2003. Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics. Cambridge University Press, 2012

    1956

  56. [57]

    Robert E. Lucas. Econometric policy evaluation: A critique.Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 1:19–46, January 1976

    1976

  57. [58]

    Aggregate demand, idle time, and unemployment *.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(2):507–569, February 2015

    Pascal Michaillat and Emmanuel Saez. Aggregate demand, idle time, and unemployment *.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(2):507–569, February 2015

    2015

  58. [59]

    Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems.Journal de Physique I, 2(9):1705–1713, 1992

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems.Journal de Physique I, 2(9):1705–1713, 1992

    1992

  59. [60]

    Out of equi- librium dynamics in spin-glasses and other glassy systems.Spin glasses and random fields, 12:161, 1998

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, Leticia F Cugliandolo, Jorge Kurchan, and Marc M´ezard. Out of equi- librium dynamics in spin-glasses and other glassy systems.Spin glasses and random fields, 12:161, 1998

    1998

  60. [61]

    Evidence of aging in spin-glass mean-field models

    L F Cugliandolo, J Kurchan, and F Ritort. Evidence of aging in spin-glass mean-field models. Physical Review B, 49(9):6331, 1994

    1994

  61. [62]

    Chaos in random neural net- works.Physical review letters, 61(3):259, 1988

    Haim Sompolinsky, Andrea Crisanti, and Hans-Jurgen Sommers. Chaos in random neural net- works.Physical review letters, 61(3):259, 1988

    1988

  62. [63]

    Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excita- tory and inhibitory activity.Science, 274(5293):1724–1726, 1996

    Carl Van Vreeswijk and Haim Sompolinsky. Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excita- tory and inhibitory activity.Science, 274(5293):1724–1726, 1996

    1996

  63. [64]

    The prevalence of chaotic dynamics in games with many players.Scientific reports, 8(1):1–13, 2018

    James BT Sanders, J Doyne Farmer, and Tobias Galla. The prevalence of chaotic dynamics in games with many players.Scientific reports, 8(1):1–13, 2018. 19

    2018

  64. [65]

    Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise.Physical review letters, 59(4):381, 1987

    Per Bak, Chao Tang, and Kurt Wiesenfeld. Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise.Physical review letters, 59(4):381, 1987

    1987

  65. [66]

    Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2013

    Per Bak.How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2013

    2013

  66. [67]

    Aggregate fluctuations from independent sectoral shocks: self-organized criticality in a model of production and inventory dynamics.Ricerche economiche, 47(1):3–30, 1993

    Per Bak, Kan Chen, Jos ´e Scheinkman, and Michael Woodford. Aggregate fluctuations from independent sectoral shocks: self-organized criticality in a model of production and inventory dynamics.Ricerche economiche, 47(1):3–30, 1993

    1993

  67. [68]

    The self-organized criticality paradigm in economics & finance

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. The self-organized criticality paradigm in economics & finance. In M. del Rio-Chanona et al., editors,The Economy as an Evolving Complex System IV. SFI Press,

  68. [69]

    Available at SSRN 5657431

  69. [70]

    Discrete choice with social interactions.The Review of Economic Studies, 68(2):235–260, 2001

    William A Brock and Steven N Durlauf. Discrete choice with social interactions.The Review of Economic Studies, 68(2):235–260, 2001

    2001

  70. [71]

    Discrete choices under social influence: Generic properties.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sci- ences, 19(supp01):1441–1481, 2009

    Mirta B Gordon, Jean-Pierre Nadal, Denis Phan, and Viktoriya Semeshenko. Discrete choices under social influence: Generic properties.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sci- ences, 19(supp01):1441–1481, 2009

    2009

  71. [72]

    Collective states in social sys- tems with interacting learning agents.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387(19-20):4903–4916, 2008

    Viktoriya Semeshenko, Mirta B Gordon, and Jean-Pierre Nadal. Collective states in social sys- tems with interacting learning agents.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387(19-20):4903–4916, 2008

    2008

  72. [73]

    mit Press, 1999

    Roger EA Farmer.The macroeconomics of self-fulfilling prophecies. mit Press, 1999

    1999

  73. [74]

    Ants, rationality, and recruitment.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(1):137–156, 1993

    Alan Kirman. Ants, rationality, and recruitment.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(1):137–156, 1993

    1993

  74. [75]

    Schr ¨odinger’s ants: A continuous description of kirman’s recruitment model.Journal of Physics: Complexity, 1(3):035002, 2020

    Jos ´e Moran, Antoine Fosset, Michael Benzaquen, and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Schr ¨odinger’s ants: A continuous description of kirman’s recruitment model.Journal of Physics: Complexity, 1(3):035002, 2020

    2020

  75. [76]

    A survey of random processes with reinforcement.Probability Surveys, 4:1–79, 2007

    Robin Pemantle. A survey of random processes with reinforcement.Probability Surveys, 4:1–79, 2007

    2007

  76. [77]

    Random walkers with extreme value memory: modelling the peak-end rule

    Rosemary J Harris. Random walkers with extreme value memory: modelling the peak-end rule. New Journal of Physics, 17(5):053049, 2015

    2015

  77. [78]

    The trouble with rational expectations in heterogeneous agent models: A chal- lenge for macroeconomics.The Economic Journal, 136(676):1173–1216, 2026

    Benjamin Moll. The trouble with rational expectations in heterogeneous agent models: A chal- lenge for macroeconomics.The Economic Journal, 136(676):1173–1216, 2026

    2026

  78. [79]

    Radical complexity.Entropy, 23(12):1676, 2021

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Radical complexity.Entropy, 23(12):1676, 2021

    2021

  79. [80]

    Hachette UK, 2020

    Mervyn King and John Kay.Radical uncertainty: Decision-making for an unknowable future. Hachette UK, 2020

    2020

  80. [81]

    Learning to be loyal

    Alan P Kirman and Nicolaas J Vriend. Learning to be loyal. a study of the marseille fish market. In Interaction and market structure: Essays on heterogeneity in economics, pages 33–56. Springer, 2000

    2000

Showing first 80 references.