Moving on to Econophysics

  • Gianfranco Tusset


Econophysics is a broad, magmatic field, and there is no intention here to even briefly outline its main research areas. There are at least a dozen highly scientific texts that deal in detail with the statistical, mathematical, and theoretical facets of this new field. Our purpose here is different: we look at the discipline to capture the internal dynamics that are expanding and transforming econophysics.

Ever since the birth of econophysics, there has been an astonishing growth in the publications relating to this discipline (scientific articles and books), and this makes it difficult to have even a vague perception of the range of topics addressed by econophysicists. To gauge the directions that econophysics (an empirically founded discipline) is taking, we charted its lexical development from its early years to the present.


  1. Abergel, F. et al. eds. 2015. Econophysics and Data Driven Modelling of Market Dynamics. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Abergel, F. et al., eds. 2017. Econophysics and Sociophysics: Recent Progress and Future Directions. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Alfi, V., M. Cristelli, L. Pietronero, and A. Zaccaria. 2009. “Minimal agent based model for financial markets I.” The European Physical Journal B 67: 385–397 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriani, P and B. McKelvey. 2011.”From Skew Distribution tp Power-law Science.” In Allen, P. S. Maguire and B. McKelvey eds. 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. Los Angeles: SAGE. 254–273Google Scholar
  5. Area Leao Pereira de, E.J., M.F. da Silva, and H.B.B. Pereira. 2017. “Econophysics: Past and Present.” Physica A. 473: 251–261 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  6. Auloos, M., P. Clippe, J. Miskiewicz, and A. Pekalki. 2004. “A (reactive) lattice-gas approach to economic cycles.” Physica A. 344: 1–7. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  7. Bachelier, L. 1900. “Théorie de Spéculation.” Annales Scientifique de l’EcoleNormal Supériore t. 17: 21–86. Reprinted and translated in Davis, M. and E. Etheridge. 2006. Louis Bachelier’s Theory of Speculation. The Origins of Modern Finance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bargigli, L. and G. Tedeschi. 2014. “Interaction in agent-based economics: A survey on the network approach.” Physica A 399: 1–15 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  9. Bassani, C.F., and The CIPS, eds. 2006. Ettore Majorana. Scientific Papers on Occasion of the Centenary of His Birth. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bouchaud, J-P. 2001. “Power laws in economics and finance some ideas from physics”. Quantitative Finance 1(1): 105–112. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  11. Chakrabarti, B. K., A. Chakraborti, and A. Chatterjee, eds. 2006. Econophysics and Sociophysics. Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Chatterjee, A. and P. Sen. 2010. “Agent dynamics in kinetic models of wealth Exchange.” Physical Review E 82: 056117 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  13. Chen, S-H. and S-P. Li. 2012. “Econophysics: Bridge over a turbulent current”. International Review of Financial Analysis 23:1–10 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  14. Clementi, F., M. Gallegati. 2005. “Power law tails in the Italian personal income distribution.” Physica A 350: 427–438 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  15. Cockshott, W.P., A.F. Cottrell, G.J. Michaelson, I.P. Wright, and V.M. Yakovenko. 2009. Classical Econophysics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Corso, G., L.S. Lucena, Z.D. Thomé. 2003. “The small-world of economy: a speculative proposal.” Physica A 324: 430–436 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  17. Düring, B., and G. Toscani. 2008. International and domestic trading and wealth distribution.” Communications in Mathematical Science 6(4): 1043–1058. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  18. Fujiwara, Y., C. Di Guilmi, H. Aoyama, M. Gallegati, and W. Souma. 2004. “Do Pareto-Zipf and Gibrat laws hold true? An analysis with European firms”. Physica A. 335: 197–216 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  19. Gallegati, M., S. Keen, T. Lux, and P. Ormerod. 2006. “Worrying trends in econophysics”. Physica A. 370: 1–6 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  20. Gallegati, M. 2016. “Beyond econophysics (not to mention mainstream economics)”. The European Physical Journal. 225: 3179–3185. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  21. Hazan, A. 2017. “Volume of the steady-state space of financial flows in a monetary stock-flow-consistent model.” Physica A 473: 589–602 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  22. Huang W-Q., S. Yao, X-T. Zhuang, and Y. Yuan. 2017. “Dynamic asset trees in the US stock market: Structure variation and market phenomena.” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 94: 44–53 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  23. Huber, T.A. and D. Sornette. 2016. “Can there be a physics of financial markets? Methodological reflections on econophysics”. The European Physical Journal. 225: 3187–2210. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  24. Ikeda, Y., H. Aoyama, H. Iyetomi, T. Mizuno, T. Ohnishi, Y. Sakamoto, and T. Watanabe. 2016. “Econophysics Point of View of Trade Liberalization.” RIETI Discussion Paper Series 16-E-026 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  25. Jovanovic F. and C. Schinckus. 2017. Econophysics and Financial Economics: An Emerging Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleiber, C. and S. Kotz. 2003. Statistical Size Distributions in Economics and Actuarial Sciences. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lux, T. and S. Alfarano. 2016. “Financial power laws: Empirical evidence, models and mechanisms”. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. 88: 3–18. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  28. Majorana, E. 2006. “The value of statistical laws in physics and social sciences.” In F. Bassani et al. eds. 2006. Bologna and Berlin: SIF and SpringerGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandelbrot, B. 1960. “The Pareto-Lévy Law and the Distribution of Income.” International Economic Review 1(2): 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mandelbrot, B. 1963[1999]. “New Methods in Statistical Economics.” Reprinted in J.C. Wood and M. McLure, eds. Vilfredo Pareto. Critical Assessments of Leading Economists. 4: 241–63.Google Scholar
  31. Mantegna, R.N. and E.H. Stanley. 2000. An Introduction to Econophysics. Correlations and Complexity in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCauley, J.L. 2006. “Response to worrying trends in econophysics”. MPRA Paper no. 2129 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  33. McCauley, J.L. 2009. Dynamics of Markets. The New Financial Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd ed. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  34. Mizuno, T., H. Takayasu, M. Takayasu. 2006. “Correlation networks among currencies.” Physica A 364: 336–342 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  35. Newman, M.E.J. 2006. “Power Laws, Pareto Distributions and Zipf’s Law.” Contemporary Physics. 46 (5): 323–351 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  36. Ormerod, P. 2016. “Ten years after ‘Worrying trends in econophysics’: developments and current challenges”. The European Physical Journal. 225: 3281–3291. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  37. Pareto, V. 1921. “Prefazione” a De Pietri-Tonelli 1921b.Google Scholar
  38. Patriarca, M., E. Heinsalu, A. Chakraborti. 2010. “Basic kinetic wealth-exchange models: common features and open problems.” The European Physical Journal B 73 (1): 145–153 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].
  39. Ponta, L., M. Raberto, and S. Cincotti. 2011. “A multi-assets artificial stock market with zero-intelligence traders. A Letter Journal Exploring the Frontiers of Physics. 93: 28002 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  40. Richmond P., J. Mimkes, and S. Hutzler. 2013. Econophysics & Physical Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Samanidou E., E. Zschischang, D. Stauffer and T. Lux. 2007. “Agent-based models of financial markets.” Report on Progress in Physics. 70: 409–450. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  42. Samuelson, P.A. (1965). “Proof That Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly.” Industrial Management Review. 6 (2): 41–49.Google Scholar
  43. Schulz, M. 2003. Statistical Physics and Economics. Concepts, Tools, and Applications. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  44. Schinckus C. 2013. “Between complexity of modelling and modelling of complexity: An essay on econophysics”. Physica A 392: 3654–3665. [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  45. Slanina, F. 2014. Essentials of Econophysics Modelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tesfatsion, Leigh. 2006, “Agent-Based Computational Modeling and Macroeconomics.” In David Colander (ed.) Post-Walrasian Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yegorov, Y. 2007. “Econo-physics: A Perspective of Matching Two Sciences.” Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev. 4(1): 143–170 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar
  48. Zheng, B., T. Qiu, and F. Ren. 2004. “Two-phase phenomena, minority games, and herding models.” Physical Review E 69, 046115 [Figures 8.1, 8.2].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianfranco Tusset
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations