- Email: [email protected]
Adaptive economic models
Book
Reviews
Ecological modeling in a resource management framework Edited by Clifford S. Russell Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1975. 394 pp. f3.90
This book contains eight papers which deal with specific models or modelling projects. together with in introductory paper on ecological modelling by Dr Spofford and a concluding ‘wheredo-we-go-from-here’ paper by Dr Orlob The models can be divided into two classes according to whether they are spatially orientated (lakes. estuaries or relatively clearly defined seas) or whether they are orientated to trophic levels (phytoplankton. fish populations. etc.). A reader gains an impression that the spatially orientated models give a better fit than the trophic level models, and that models for producer organisms (e.g. phytoplankton) give a better fit than models of carnivores (the fishery models). Perhaps the greatest difficulty in a conference volume such as this is to adequately describe the model that you are using. Professor Nihoul writes on a model for the North Sea, and shows (pp I4 1~142) an excellent agreement between the model for tides and storm surges and observational data. However, one has to take such a statement on its filce value, since no details of the model itself are given. However. in the prcceding paper, by Dr Kelly writ&g about the Delaware Estuarv. there is sufficient information (particularly in Fig. 4 and section IV) for a reader to appreciate the basic structure of the model and to realize some of the problems of the model output, as in Fig. 6. Any editorial action which made the treatment of the models more even would certainly have been appreciated. The book was produced within 10 months of the conference. and the price has been kept cheap by printing directly from the typescript. However, there is no excuse for the mixture of different typescripts from paper to paper. or even within the same paper (cf. p 213). The editor has included 82 pages of the discussion transcript. hut has not provided an index : I would have found an index more value than the discussion
M. B. Usher
286
Appl.
Math.
Modelling,
1977,
Adaptive economic models Edited by R. H. Day and T. Groves Academic Press, New York, 1975. f 12.75 The problems posed by specialization in academia are by no means purely recent phenomena. The degree of communication between different branches of knowledge has been steadily diminishing since the demise of the da Vinci type master of all trades. This is perhaps particularly evident wjith respect to communication between the physical sciences on the one hand and the social sciences on the other. The tremendous advances made in recent years in all spheres of activity thus make welcome any encouragement given to interdisciplinary exchanges of knowledge. as it would appear likely that such exchanges would prove mutually advantageous to all concerned. The twenty-three papers collected in this volume were all presented at a symposium held in October 1974. It was hoped that this would act as a catalyst for ‘. a fruitful confluence of hitherto separate biological and economic disciplines. .‘. and more specifically would give consideration to ‘. adaptive processes in economics’. It would be impossible to summarize and comment upon all twenty-three papers presented. but some remarks on a general level can he made. The unifying idea Intended to run through the proceedings is that economic agents ‘adapt’ to their perceived environments; action under uncertainty tempered by learning. In the realm of biology. considerable attention has been devoted to the study of adaptive behaviour in biological organisms. so the question posed by the symposium is whether the economist can derive benefit from this work. It is clear that no benefit can he derived until the economist has become aware of the biological tools available. The lucid and absorbing paper by Robert Rosen goes a long way towards providing this information by setting out very clearly the biologist’s point of view and preparing the way for the analogy to bc drawn between biological and economic organisms. However, this potentially unifying idea seems to become progressively more obscured as one reads on. Thih is the
Vol.
1, June
inevitable price paid for attempting to encompass so wide a range of topics. Nonetheless. there are a number of interesting papers included, sufficient to provide food for thought to economists of many different specialist fields. as the idea of adaptation is of wide applicability. Thus there are papers covering a wide spectrum of economic topics. including for instance those concerned with the modelling of innovation diffusion. labour markets. information externalities, financial institutions and adaptive utility. in addition to papers attacking the traditional notion of profit maximization and the ‘as if’ optimization approach. However, whether the idea is of suficient strength to provide the basis of a whole new branch of economics is open to doubt. In particular. the widespread application of any analogy unleashes the danger of forcing the square peg into the round hole: the danger of imposing a structure for its own sake. In addition. many of the papers open no new vistas. but arc content to adapt old ones. It is disappointing to find so little in the way of empirical content in the book. the empirical work being limited to on14 two of the papers. This is probably unavoidable given the exploratory nature of the subject matter. The book thus seems at once too broad and too narrow in its scope. Too broad in the sense that while the individual papers are interesting and dcscrving of attention in their own right. thev do not seem to cohere into a unified structure. the idea of adaptation being insufficient common ground. Too narro\\ in the sense that only one basic idea has been imported from one other discipline. Is there no greater scope for interdisciplinary exchange of ideas? Nonetheless, there is plenty in the book to stimulate thought. and it should help to encourage a sense of awareness that one’s onn subject is not the only one in the world. P. Smith
Reviews
Ecological modeling in a resource management framework Edited by Clifford S. Russell Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1975. 394 pp. f3.90
This book contains eight papers which deal with specific models or modelling projects. together with in introductory paper on ecological modelling by Dr Spofford and a concluding ‘wheredo-we-go-from-here’ paper by Dr Orlob The models can be divided into two classes according to whether they are spatially orientated (lakes. estuaries or relatively clearly defined seas) or whether they are orientated to trophic levels (phytoplankton. fish populations. etc.). A reader gains an impression that the spatially orientated models give a better fit than the trophic level models, and that models for producer organisms (e.g. phytoplankton) give a better fit than models of carnivores (the fishery models). Perhaps the greatest difficulty in a conference volume such as this is to adequately describe the model that you are using. Professor Nihoul writes on a model for the North Sea, and shows (pp I4 1~142) an excellent agreement between the model for tides and storm surges and observational data. However, one has to take such a statement on its filce value, since no details of the model itself are given. However. in the prcceding paper, by Dr Kelly writ&g about the Delaware Estuarv. there is sufficient information (particularly in Fig. 4 and section IV) for a reader to appreciate the basic structure of the model and to realize some of the problems of the model output, as in Fig. 6. Any editorial action which made the treatment of the models more even would certainly have been appreciated. The book was produced within 10 months of the conference. and the price has been kept cheap by printing directly from the typescript. However, there is no excuse for the mixture of different typescripts from paper to paper. or even within the same paper (cf. p 213). The editor has included 82 pages of the discussion transcript. hut has not provided an index : I would have found an index more value than the discussion
M. B. Usher
286
Appl.
Math.
Modelling,
1977,
Adaptive economic models Edited by R. H. Day and T. Groves Academic Press, New York, 1975. f 12.75 The problems posed by specialization in academia are by no means purely recent phenomena. The degree of communication between different branches of knowledge has been steadily diminishing since the demise of the da Vinci type master of all trades. This is perhaps particularly evident wjith respect to communication between the physical sciences on the one hand and the social sciences on the other. The tremendous advances made in recent years in all spheres of activity thus make welcome any encouragement given to interdisciplinary exchanges of knowledge. as it would appear likely that such exchanges would prove mutually advantageous to all concerned. The twenty-three papers collected in this volume were all presented at a symposium held in October 1974. It was hoped that this would act as a catalyst for ‘. a fruitful confluence of hitherto separate biological and economic disciplines. .‘. and more specifically would give consideration to ‘. adaptive processes in economics’. It would be impossible to summarize and comment upon all twenty-three papers presented. but some remarks on a general level can he made. The unifying idea Intended to run through the proceedings is that economic agents ‘adapt’ to their perceived environments; action under uncertainty tempered by learning. In the realm of biology. considerable attention has been devoted to the study of adaptive behaviour in biological organisms. so the question posed by the symposium is whether the economist can derive benefit from this work. It is clear that no benefit can he derived until the economist has become aware of the biological tools available. The lucid and absorbing paper by Robert Rosen goes a long way towards providing this information by setting out very clearly the biologist’s point of view and preparing the way for the analogy to bc drawn between biological and economic organisms. However, this potentially unifying idea seems to become progressively more obscured as one reads on. Thih is the
Vol.
1, June
inevitable price paid for attempting to encompass so wide a range of topics. Nonetheless. there are a number of interesting papers included, sufficient to provide food for thought to economists of many different specialist fields. as the idea of adaptation is of wide applicability. Thus there are papers covering a wide spectrum of economic topics. including for instance those concerned with the modelling of innovation diffusion. labour markets. information externalities, financial institutions and adaptive utility. in addition to papers attacking the traditional notion of profit maximization and the ‘as if’ optimization approach. However, whether the idea is of suficient strength to provide the basis of a whole new branch of economics is open to doubt. In particular. the widespread application of any analogy unleashes the danger of forcing the square peg into the round hole: the danger of imposing a structure for its own sake. In addition. many of the papers open no new vistas. but arc content to adapt old ones. It is disappointing to find so little in the way of empirical content in the book. the empirical work being limited to on14 two of the papers. This is probably unavoidable given the exploratory nature of the subject matter. The book thus seems at once too broad and too narrow in its scope. Too broad in the sense that while the individual papers are interesting and dcscrving of attention in their own right. thev do not seem to cohere into a unified structure. the idea of adaptation being insufficient common ground. Too narro\\ in the sense that only one basic idea has been imported from one other discipline. Is there no greater scope for interdisciplinary exchange of ideas? Nonetheless, there is plenty in the book to stimulate thought. and it should help to encourage a sense of awareness that one’s onn subject is not the only one in the world. P. Smith