Complexity and Spatial Networks
The modern spatial economy has a global “networked” character that is generating important socioeconomic and political changes. In this respect, new forms of connectivity play a significant role through their dynamic and complex interplay with the economic and political driving forces behind globalization. In analyzing such impacts, it is useful to consider the tools and models that have been adopted in regional economics as well as in other disciplines. In this context, it is also necessary to reflect on complexity theory and on the models able to map out the complex interconnected spatial networks.
This chapter begins with a concise review of the most important definitions of complexity, in the light of their relations with spatial networks. There follows an exploration of the main findings from two “close” disciplines, that is, spatial economics and network science, with reference to their associated approaches and modeling tools which are able to grasp complexity from, respectively, the behavioral and the network structure viewpoint. The emerging discussion – with reference to both static and dynamic frameworks through the lens of complexity issues – indicates that (i) a formal correspondence between the fundamental spatial economic models and network models exists and (ii) this correspondence highlights the “simplicity” of the laws underlying complex spatial networks.
KeywordsStatic complexity Dynamic complexity Spatial networks Spatial economic models Network analysis
The author wishes to thank two referees for their valuable comments.
- Adamic LA (2000) Zipf, power-laws, and pareto – a ranking tutorial. Retrieved 4 January 2019 from: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/ranking/ranking.html
- Axelrod A, Cohen MD (2000) Harnessing complexity. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Batty M (2005) Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Casti J (1979) Connectivity, complexity and catastrophe in large scale systems. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Einstein A (1905) Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig? (Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?). Ann Phys 323(13):639–643. Retrieved 4 January 2019 from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.19053231314/pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fotheringham AS, O’Kelly ME (1989) Spatial interaction models. Formulations and applications. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Gandolfo G (1996) Economic dynamics. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Heylighen F (1996) What is complexity? Retrieved 4 January 2019 from: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COMPLEXI.html
- Isard W (1956) Location and space-economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Krugman P (1994) Complex landscapes in economic geography. In: Reggiani A, Button K, Nijkamp P (eds) Planning models. Classics in planning. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 401–405Google Scholar
- McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
- Nicolis G, Prigogine I (1977) Self-organisation in non equilibrium systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nijkamp P, Reggiani A (1998) The economics of complex spatial systems. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Rose A (2009) Economic resilience to disasters. CARRI Report No. 8, Community and Resilience Institute. Retrieved 4 January 2019 from: http://www.resilientus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Research_Report_8_Rose_1258138606.pdf
- Scott J (2017) Social network analysis, 4th edn. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
- Simon H (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482Google Scholar
- Weaver W (1948) Science and complexity. Am Sci 36:536–544Google Scholar
- Wilson A (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Zipf GK (1949) Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar