Archive for the ‘Complexity’ Category

h1

David Warsh on complexity and economics

June 28, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

David Warsh’s Economic Principals column this week is about complexity, and the study of complexity in economics. It is as informative and insightful as Warsh’s columns usually are, despite its selective coverage. He highlights some ideas that I think are important for the future direction of economics — the isolation of the twin methodological peaks of what David Colander calls the “summit of Mt. Walras” and Warsh calls “Game Theory Massif”, a brief history of complexity economics since the 1980s, and the extent to which complexity necessitates a change in research methodology to incorporate work like agent-based modeling and variables that are less “formalizable” on Mt. Walras, such as institutions and knowledge.

This was not Warsh’s purpose in his column, but I’d expand beyond his column to incorporate the intersection of his ideas with Hayek’s “Theory of Complex Phenomena” (1967) and the general relevance of the knowledge problem to why and how phenomena are complex. In social systems, diffuse private knowledge is a big reason why complex social systems evolve, and why we discover and design rules that exploit that complexity to get better outcomes. Markets and prices are just the most obvious and pervasive example, but there are multitudes of others.

I recommend Warsh’s column, both today and as a worthwhile weekly read, for some good thought provocation and for some discussion of the ideas that animate the work here at Knowledge Problem and related ideas.

h1

Group theory, visualization, and mattress longevity

May 4, 2010

Lynne Kiesling

Steve Strogatz is a professor of applied mathematics at Cornell and a master of explaining abstract mathematical principles to non-mathematicians. He also posts occasionally on the New York Times’ Opinionator blog, and his post on Sunday was a real treat. Using the domestic conundrum of how to flip your mattress to maximize its longevity and inspired by a couple of recent publications, his delightful and clear post provides a wonderful introduction to group theory.

By looking into mattress math in some detail, I hope to give you a feeling for group theory more generally.  It’s one of the most versatile parts of mathematics. It underlies everything from the choreography of contra dancing and the fundamental laws of particle physics, to the mosaics of the Alhambra and their chaotic counterparts …

The mattress group also pops up in some unexpected places, from the symmetry of water molecules to the logic of a pair of electrical switches.  That’s one of the charms of group theory.  It exposes the hidden unity of things that would otherwise seem unrelated …

I’m fascinated with symmetry and spatial relationships of objects, so I relished this post, and I hope you do too.

h1

Cato Unbound: Hayek and the Common Law

December 15, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

This month’s issue of Cato Unbound has a topic that sits at the core of the issues of interest here: Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order, its universality, and its applicability to orders beyond market processes, including the common law.

Examples abound. No one individual or committee sets market prices; those who have tried have always failed. No designer created the English language, and artificial languages have never met with any great success. Scientific discovery through repeated experiment causes truth to emerge, but scientific truth is not forged through rationalistic design. Instead, it is a product of many uncoordinated searches, serendipity, and replication across the scientific community.

Timothy Sandefur’s lead article lays out what he sees as four problems with Hayek’s normative conclusions arising from his analysis of spontaneous (or, as I prefer, emergent) social orders and the processes by which they evolve. John Hasnas, Dan Klein, and Bruce Caldwell provide responses to Sandefur’s argument. Taken as a whole, these four articles provide a thoughtful and thorough critical examination of Hayek’s arguments. If you have any interest in legal and regulatory institutions and the processes by which they evolve, these articles are well worth reading and thinking about carefully.

h1

Some complexity-based thoughts on macro

October 26, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I am doing a lot of reading and thinking, trying to make some headway on a way-overdue paper, and have been reading a striking working paper from David Colander, Richard Holt, and Barkley Rosser, “The Complexity Era in Economics” (August 2009). Their insights are directed toward the evolution of economics methodology and the absorption of complexity-related concepts and techniques. In addition to being relevant to my own work on regulatory institutions and technological change, I found the paper insightful in the context of the discussion a couple of weeks ago about this year’s new institutional economics Nobel prize and the dominant methodological hegemony in economics.

One of their interesting observations is also pertinent to the reexamination of macroeconomic theory in light of the financial market context of the past year and a half. This quote, in particular, illustrates what I find especially striking in macroeconomics:

However, while the new theoretical models have done a good job in eliminating the old theory, it is less clear as to what the new theoretical work has added to our understanding of the macro economy. At best, the results of the new macro models can be roughly calibrated with the empirical evidence, but often the calibration of these new models is no better than any other model, and the only claim they have to being preferred is aesthetic—they have micro foundations. However, it is a strange micro foundation—a micro foundation based on assumptions of no heterogeneous agent interaction, when, for many people intuitively, it is precisely the heterogeneous agent interaction that leads to central characteristics of the macro economy.

It’s also interesting that in that section they footnote Leijonhufvud, who wrote the only macroeconomic theory that I ever felt like I had any kind of grasp on, On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes:A Study in Monetary Theory.

If you haven’t had you fill of current critiques of macro theory, and you are interested in reading their thoughts on the evolution of economics to incorporate the analysis of economic systems as complex adaptive systems, I recommend this short working paper.

h1

Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Not exactly making friends and influencing people

September 22, 2009

Michael Giberson

From WSJ Environmental Capital:

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.”

I’ll resist engaging the paternalism that oozes from Chu’s choice of metaphors, and instead suggest to Dr. Chu the particular value of markets and prices in coordinating the actions of “average folks [lacking] the know-how or will to change their behavior.”  In fact, I’ll more than agree with Chu, I’ll go beyond him.  It isn’t just average folks – no one knows everything that is needed to stabilize the climate in the recent historical range for the same reason that no one knows everything that is needed to make a pencil (as per Leonard Read) – not Presidents, nor Congress, nor Nobel prize winners, nor anyone else.

Markets can coordinate actions even in cases in which no one person has the “know-how or will to change”, though admittedly when dealing with climate stabilization issues creating a useful market will be complicated.

h1

Grant McCracken: Concatenating capitalism

September 21, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Grant McCracken always has insightful interpretations of various human/social phenomena, and in this recent post he offers one that he calls “concatenating capitalism“. In discussing “eco-entrepreneur” Joshua Onysko and his work developing his Pangea Organics products, Grant makes a decidedly beyond-Schumpeterian observation about the role of entrepreneurs in transforming the economy and the daily lives of consumers:

But Joshua is not interested in the usual life trajectory of the entrepreneur.  No, he is intent on the reformation of capitalism.  He wants to change the way we think about products, packaging, manufacture, retail, consumption, and the planet.  (Some Pangea products have seeds embedded in the packaging…to make the garbage bloom.)

In a sense, Joshua is exercising the advantage of his generation.  My generation (boomers) tend to see the world as a series of discrete episodes.  What happens here doesn’t have any necessary connection there.  My generation can see consequences but we tend to think of them as capital letters joined by little arrows: A > B.  It’s clear that Joshua thinks more in terms of concatenation, where events run in all directions at once.

I think this deceptively simple insight is profound because it illuminates the inherent non-linearity and complexity that characterize the aggregation of real interactions in real markets, a connection that Grant goes on to make in his characteristic thought-provoking way:

It is the genius of capitalism that it is so very pliable.  It doesn’t really care about the details, just so long as interested parties can engage in transactions that work to their respective advantage.  Indeed, it has conventionally preserved that brilliant act of reduction that Adam Smith accomplished in Wealth of Nations.  It removes from consideration everything extra-transactional, all the cultural, social, political, ecological factors coming in and going out of the transaction.  All of these were, in Kuhnian terms, extra-paradigmatic.  The model didn’t include them.  It didn’t need to know about them.  Onyesko and the double entrepreneurs appear now to be reinstalling these factors, making them visible, thinkable, calculable, perhaps even manageable.

I’ve left out quite a bit, so do go read his whole post, and more of his work.

h1

Emergent orders are all around us, especially in cities

September 10, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Ron Bailey’s Hit & Run post, Ant Hills=Brains=Cities, reminded me of some really important, fundamental ideas that tend to get lost as we natter about financial regulation, health care regulation, climate regulation …

Emergent orders abound, and occur at all sorts of different scales — molecular, cellular, all the way to complex social structures that were not deliberately designed through some central planning group or function. Ron cites the excellent Godel, Escher, Bach to introduce some new research arguing that cities are like brains in their emergent order construction for successful functioning. Ron quotes Mark Changizi, a neurobiology expert and assistant professor in the Department of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute:

… brains and cities, as they grow larger, have to be similarly densely interconnected to function optimally.

Interesting. Not surprising, especially if you’ve thought about emergent orders, and double-especially if you’ve read any of Jane Jacobs’ writing on cities. I recommend the Jacobs interview at Reason that Ron links, as well as other Jacobs sources linked in the various posts I’ve written invoking Jane Jacobs and her work over the past several years.

Given how much attention we are having to pay to imposed orders, and the increasing efforts to create more deeply imposed orders in finance, healthcare, etc., it’s important to remember how much of the social life of individuals is a web of emergent orders, and that the biggest and best value creation and thriving and innovation that we have seen in human history arises when individuals can choose and take action in emergent orders.

h1

A new paper, and presenting it at conferences this week

June 17, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

My co-author David Chassin and I have a new working paper available at SSRN from the GridWise Olympic Peninsula testbed demonstration project:

Beneficial Complexity: A Field Experiment in Technology, Institutions, and Institutional Change in the Electric Power Industry

This paper presents and analyzes the results of a recent field experiment in which residential electricity customers in Washington State with price-responsive in-home devices could use those devices to change their electricity consumption autonomously. Doing so also required an important institutional change: the regulatory institutions had to change to allow dynamic pricing. Customers could choose a retail pricing contract from a portfolio of contracts, instead of the fixed, regulated retail rate. Here we focus on the results of the real-time contract, under which homeowners participate in a double auction with a market clearing occurring every five minutes. These customers saved money, and their peak demand (and pressure on infrastructure at peak capacity) fell by 15 percent. Moreover, this combination of technology and institutional design enabled decentralized coordination, and we use complexity science to interpret results that show that the real-time market outcomes were those of a self-organizing and scalable complex adaptive system. We also draw policy implications from these results.

I will be presenting this paper at the International Society of New Institutional Economics meeting and the International Association of Energy Economics meeting over the next week. If you’ll be at either conference, I hope to see you there!

h1

Peer-to-peer power through microgrids

April 21, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

When we think of concepts like peer-to-peer networks and disintermediation, we usually think of industries that are very Internet-centric. But these concepts can, should, and will apply in electric power networks too: smart grid technology enables peer-to-peer power.

The study referenced in that BBC article analyzes the potential for microgrids, and argues that the real potential from applying smart grid technology to create microgrids is in the ability to create a neighborhood peer-to-peer network in which neighboring customers can buy and sell from each other:

“A microgrid is a collection of small generators for a collection of users in close proximity,” explained Dr Markvart, whose research appears in the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Ingenia magazine.

“It supplies heat through the household, but you already have cables in the ground, so it is easy to construct an electricity network. Then you create some sort of control network.”

That network could be made into a smart grid using more sophisticated software and grid computing technologies.

As an analogy, the microgrids could work like peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies, such as BitTorrents, where demand is split up and shared around the network of “users”.

As distributed generation and plug-in hybrid vehicles proliferate in the market, more numbers and types of electricity consumers will have the resources to be both buyers and sellers in such a peer-to-peer network. Look, for example, at the picture of a P2P network at the Wikipedia peer-to-peer entry.

Now imagine that instead of computers, each of the entities depicted on this network is a home or small business in a microgrid network. Power, and commercial transactions, can flow in both directions between pairs on the network, and they can flow between any pairs of agents who have agreed to participate. Just think of what that can do to reliability, especially if you pair it up with transactive, price-responsive end-use technologies that have the type of behavior I described in this post on smart grid and complexity and this post on how intelligent end-use devices make a transactive smart grid valuable.

If you are interested in learning more about a microgrid project, here’s a report on the Galvin Electricity Initiative prototype microgrid project at the Illinois Institute of Technology. It focuses on the technical details and capabilities of a microgrid to provide reliable, high-quality electric power service, not on the microgrid’s transactive capabilities, but it’s a good introduction.

The technology exists for P2P power networks. The institutional structure, though, does not allow for such a decentralized, transactive network — the regulatory environment typically does not allow microgrids for a variety of reasons, including the monopoly granted to the local utility on the construction of distribution wires that cross public rights-of-way.

h1

Smart grid, complexity, and swarm logic

April 15, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

One of the recurring themes here at KP is that smart grid technology makes it possible to harness distributed intelligence in the electric power network, and when you couple that network of distributed intelligence with a decentralized flow of information (such as price signals and market processes), you can get reliability through decentralized coordination instead of through the imposition of hierarchical control. Moreover, because individual agents are voluntarily coordinating instead of being forced into a control structure, it’s likely that decentralized coordination generates more social surplus, increases total welfare, etc.

Here’s an exciting new building intelligence product than can start to deliver on that vision. As described in this CNet article, Regen Energy is producing wireless device controllers that, when networked, can adjust device energy use based on individualized, decentralized trigger settings:

Rather than send specific instructions to each controller, the system sets parameters, such as cutting power consumption at peak times during the day. The EnviroGrid controllers individually make adjustments to the chillers, such as turning them off for 10 minutes out of an hour, which in aggregate hit the overall goal, Kerbel explained.

“We tell the controllers, ‘Here are some rough guidelines for upper and lower limits’ (of energy consumption) and they do the work,” he said. “Right now, the way to do this sort of thing is to get a building engineer who does an analysis and then get a software programmer to write custom code.”

The technology is a prime example of how computer and networking technologies are quickly being applied to the energy industry to improve efficiency.

The decentralized decision-making approach is also a break with tradition central building management systems where building equipment is typically purchased for peak power demands.

Yes, indeed it is! It’s also a break with the top-down control hierarchy mindset that pervades the engineering, the regulatory, and the business model cultures in this industry.

Regen refers to their technology as using “swarm logic”, based on the complex adaptive systems ideas of self-organization and emergent order as seen in bees, ants, and other large populations that coordinate with the use of distributed intelligence, rules for responding to observed behavior, and limited hierarchy. As I argue in my book, based on the work of Hayek and other complexity-oriented economists, this kind of self-organization and emergent order also characterizes healthy, competitive markets.

A recent Technology Review article also gives a nice overview of the technology and the idea of swarm logic:

“Every node thinks for itself,” says Mark Kerbel, cofounder and chief executive officer of REGEN Energy, which invented the proprietary algorithm embedded in each device. Before making a decision, he explains, a node will consider the circumstances of other nodes in its network. For example, if a refrigerator needs to cycle on to maintain a minimum temperature, a node connected to a fan or pump will stay off for an extra 15 minutes to keep power use below a certain threshold. “The devices must satisfy the local restraint but simultaneously satisfy the system objective,” says Kerbel, adding that a typical building might have between 10 and 40 controllers working together in a single “hive.” The devices are simple and quick to install and, because there’s no human intervention, require no special training to use.

It’s a dramatic departure from the top-down command model associated with current building-automation systems. Some researchers say that the decentralized approach to energy management offers a cheaper, more effective way to manage supply and demand in a delicately balanced electricity system. Indeed, some believe that it could be an early prescription for an emerging smart grid.

In this case the only hierarchy imposed from the system controller is some global objective function, such as minimizing overall energy use. Each device controller is programmed with trigger points, such as total system use or frequency level, and is then also programmed to take an action once it is at the trigger; note that this trigger is also likely to be more granular and smaller-scale than, say, a “turn off” command, so the functionality of the device to the consumer will only be minimally affected. In aggregate, the individual actions of the distributed responsive devices achieve the system objective without impairing functionality or consumer value in any meaningful way. And using this swarm logic and self-organization model to harness distributed intelligence is also saving consumers money:

Tests have so far demonstrated that building owners–of hospitals, hotels, shopping malls, factories, and other large facilities–could save as much as 30 percent on their peak-demand charges. Those savings, REGEN claims, more than cover the cost of renting the devices, which is an option for major electricity consumers reluctant to buy the technology up front. If the devices are purchased, the payback is less than three years, says Kerbel.

Thus far it sounds like Regen’s device controllers are responding to data on physical conditions. But it’s not a difficult stretch to enable the distributed controllers to respond to price signals, which would make them transactive. Different types of devices could have different trigger price settings, reflecting the preferences of the building owner. Once they do that, Regen would probably pass my transactive test.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers