Participatory Market Society: Difference between revisions
(Created page with " =More Information= * Article: Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society. Dirk Helbing. URL = http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4078v2...") |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
URL = http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4078v2.pdf | URL = http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4078v2.pdf | ||
Abstract | |||
Despite all our great advances in science, technology and financial innovations, many soci- | |||
eties today are struggling with a financial, economic and public spending crisis, over-regulation, | |||
and mass unemployment, as well as lack of sustainability and innovation. Can we still rely on | |||
conventional economic thinking or do we need a new approach? Is our economic system under- | |||
going a fundamental transformation? Are our theories still doing a good job with just a few | |||
exceptions, or do they work only for “good weather” but not for “market storms”? Can we fix | |||
existing theories by adapting them a bit, or do we need a fundamentally different approach? | |||
These are the kind of questions that will be addressed in this paper. | |||
I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decision- | |||
making and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be | |||
explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural | |||
selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo | |||
economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” | |||
are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “net- | |||
worked minds”. Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo | |||
economicus”. | |||
I show that the “homo economicus” and the “homo socialis” imply a different kind of | |||
dynamics and distinct aggregate outcomes. Therefore, next to the traditional economics for | |||
the “homo economicus” (“economics 1.0”), a complementary theory must be developed for | |||
the “homo socialis”. This economic theory might be called “economics 2.0” or “socionomics”. | |||
The names are justified, because the Web 2.0 is currently promoting a transition to a new | |||
market organization, which benefits from social media platforms and could be characterized as | |||
“participatory market society”. | |||
To thrive, the “homo socialis” requires suitable institutional settings such a particular kinds | |||
of reputation systems, which will be sketched in this paper. I also propose a new kind of money, | |||
so-called “qualified money”, which may overcome some of the problems of our current financial | |||
system. | |||
In summary, I discuss the economic literature from a new perspective and argue that this | |||
offers the basis for a different theoretical framework. This opens the door for a new economic | |||
thinking and a novel research field, which focuses on the effects, implications, and institutional | |||
requirements for global-scale network interactions and highly interdependent decisions. | |||
[[Category:P2P Market Approaches]] | [[Category:P2P Market Approaches]] | ||
Revision as of 02:53, 28 March 2014
More Information
- Article: Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society. Dirk Helbing.
URL = http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4078v2.pdf
Abstract Despite all our great advances in science, technology and financial innovations, many soci- eties today are struggling with a financial, economic and public spending crisis, over-regulation, and mass unemployment, as well as lack of sustainability and innovation. Can we still rely on conventional economic thinking or do we need a new approach? Is our economic system under- going a fundamental transformation? Are our theories still doing a good job with just a few exceptions, or do they work only for “good weather” but not for “market storms”? Can we fix existing theories by adapting them a bit, or do we need a fundamentally different approach? These are the kind of questions that will be addressed in this paper. I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decision- making and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “net- worked minds”. Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo economicus”. I show that the “homo economicus” and the “homo socialis” imply a different kind of dynamics and distinct aggregate outcomes. Therefore, next to the traditional economics for the “homo economicus” (“economics 1.0”), a complementary theory must be developed for the “homo socialis”. This economic theory might be called “economics 2.0” or “socionomics”. The names are justified, because the Web 2.0 is currently promoting a transition to a new market organization, which benefits from social media platforms and could be characterized as “participatory market society”. To thrive, the “homo socialis” requires suitable institutional settings such a particular kinds of reputation systems, which will be sketched in this paper. I also propose a new kind of money, so-called “qualified money”, which may overcome some of the problems of our current financial system. In summary, I discuss the economic literature from a new perspective and argue that this offers the basis for a different theoretical framework. This opens the door for a new economic thinking and a novel research field, which focuses on the effects, implications, and institutional requirements for global-scale network interactions and highly interdependent decisions.