Time out politics: transforming time into space
Nicholas C. Georgantzas *
Fordham University Business Schools
113 West 60th Street, Suite 617-D
New York, NY 10023-7484, U.S.A.
Tel.: +1.917.667.4022 | fax: +1.212.765.5573 | email: georgantzas@fordham.edu
Georges D. Contogeorgis **
Panteion University of Athens
136 Sygrou Avenue
Athens 17671, Hellas
Tel.: +30.697.730.4175 | fax: +30.210.920.1743 | email: gdcl14247@gmail.com
* Nicholas C. Georgantzas is Professor, Management Systems, and Director, System Dynamics (SD)
Consultancy, Fordham University, New York, NY, USA. Both an Associate and a Guest Editor, System
Dynamics Review, is also consultant to senior management as well as a forensic economist, specializing
in SD simulation modeling for learning in strategy, production and business process (re) design. Author
of Scenario-Driven Planning (Greenwood, 1995), has published expansively in refereed scholarly
journals, conference proceedings and edited books. Mostly transdisciplinary, his research interests,
publications and consulting entail systems thinking, knowledge technology and strategy design, focusing
on the necessary theory and tools for learning in and about the dynamically complex systems in which we
all live.
** Georges D. Contogeorgis is Professor, Political Science, Panteion University, Athens, Greece.
Former Rector, Secretary General of the Hellenic Association of Political Science, member of the High
Council and Research Council at the European University Institute of Florence, President-General
Director of the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation, Interim Minister of Media and Communication,
Founding Member of European Political Science Network (EPSNET), Director of Research, CNRS,
France etc. He is Correspondent Member of the International Academy of Portuguese Culture. Major
publications: The Theory of Revolution in Aristotle, Paris, 1975; The Popular Ideology. Socio-political
Study of the Greek Folk Song, Athens, 1979; Political System and Politics, Athens, 1985; Social Process
and Political Self Government. The Greek City-State Under Ottoman Rule, Athens, 1982; Nuclear Energy
and Public Opinion in Europe, Brussels, 1991; History of Greece, Paris, 1992; Communication System
and Political Change: The Television (in French), 1993; Greek Society in the 20th Century, 1995;
Democracy in the Technological Society, Athens, 1995; Citizenship and City, Paris, 2000; “Samuel
Huntington and “The Clash of Civilizations”. “Religious Civilization or Cosmosystem?” Montpellier,
2001; Modernity and Progress, Athens, 2001; The Authoritarian Phenomenon, Athens, 2003; Citizenship
and State, Athens, 2003. The Hellenic Cosmosystem, v.1. The Statocentric Period, Athens, 2006; Nation
and Modernity, Athens, 2007; The Democracy as Freedom. Democracy and Representation, Athens,
2007; The Hellenic Democracy of Rigas Velestinlis, Athens, 2008; Youth, Freedom and the State,
Athens, 2009.
Acknowledgement: We are grateful to Dr. Mohammad T. Mojtahedzadeh, President and CEO, Attune
Group, Inc., for his invaluably helpful input.
Time out politics: transforming time into space
Abstract
Sustainable development is absolutely necessary for a viable human future, which corroborates the need
for diverse, society-specific cultures across the globe. Cultural diversity enhances the human entelechy in
us for personal vitality, institutional invigoration and viable socioeconomic development as well as
morality, human integrity, societal solidarity, cooperation and amicable human and organizational
relations. The purpose of this research is to test a theoretical sustainable development framework, using
the system dynamics (SD) modeling method. The experimental results show how the administrative and
political systems in and about all of us live and work transform time into space, through a transition from
system structure and dynamics to focusing all attention on one-time events, manifested as systemic
discontinuities through time. Cast as a methodological application too, the article also shows the use and
benefits of formal SD model analysis.
Keywords: political systems, sustainable development, system dynamics (SD)
A normative tenet within our system dynamics (SD) community urges us to shift our focus from one-time
events to through-time behavior patterns and to system structure. By system structure we mean the
structure of invisible cause-and-effect relations that form circular feedback loops, which drive system
behavior through time (Meadows 1989, Sterman 2000, p. 16). Yet, the administrative and political
systems in and about all of us live and work seem to always do precisely the opposite. Not only do they
ignore system structure and the dynamics, i.e., through-time behavior patterns, of systems, and thereby
focus all of their and our attention on one-time events, but they also seem to transform time into ugly
spaces through one-time events, as they create ugly, systemic discontinuities through time.
This could be perhaps because the eminently natural, dynamic movement of our cosmos scares
phobic people. Its eternal kinesis makes the risk-averse deny its continuous metamorphosis, denouncing
all that constitutes a supposedly frightening ‘unknown’ future. Fear about what exactly that unknown is,
incorporates the great fear of the loss of our ego, the ultimate fear, the fear of death. All this at a time
when nothing short of a radical societal transformation is needed to reverse the downhill, free-fall trends
that all of us —phobic or not— see in our business, economic, educational, financial, societal and political
systems in our modern temporality.
Indeed, the data are in (Friedman 2011, Krugman 2011, Paxman 2011). As they erupt from
Tunisia to Tel Aviv to Wall Street, people’s protests show that a societal metamorphosis is happening
globally that needs defining. People cannot take it any more. Some say it is all part of the big shift: our
system of financial crises, ineffective ‘democracy’ and overloading planet Earth —our system- is eating
itself alive. It is broken. Are we better off if we let it work, if we let the rich get richer fast at the expense
Nv
of the rest of us, if we let corporations focus only on wealth accumulation, if we let pollution go
unchecked? When the Occupy Wall Street (occupywallst.org) protests began, most news organizations
were derisive if they deigned to mention the protests at all. What can we say about them? A useful
critique of the protests is the absence of specific societal and political demands. Rich Yeselson, a veteran
organizer and historian of societal movements, has suggested that debt relief for working Americans has
become a central plank for the protests (Wolff 2012).
Hydrogen accumulation can cause the worst-case, ‘China-syndrome’ scenario to play in
Fukushima, which, together with the Gulf of Mexico disaster makes a perfect example of the dire
consequences of brutal cost cutting in our modernity. In their incisive prognosis of America’s economic
meltdown, Melissaratos and Slabbert (2009) conclude that science-challenged America must reclaim its
hellenic roots. Likewise, Hiwaki (2011, 2012) argues that a viable human future necessitates sustainable
development that in turn requires soundness of diverse society-specific cultures across the globe.
That and perhaps infrastructure and technology investments —not just debt or tax cuts— can help
create new jobs, a vexing research topic that Zeleny (2012) deals with explicitly. Meanwhile, in glorious
Hellas and Italy, the governments of the bankers fell. That is the good news. The bad news is that,
hereinafter, the bankers govern themselves. Back in the USA, taking Buffett’s (2011) cue, along with
Rawls’ (1999) theoretical backing, President Obama proposed a ‘millionaire tax’ (Calmes 2011). In an
orwellian fashion, some Americans denounce it as a ‘class war’. The truth is, however, that the super-rich
have already won the war (Wolff 2012). The incoming data could indeed be informing us of the
beginning of a global revolution. But it is a knowledge revolution that this article advocates for our much
troubled modern temporality.
Just as Hiwaki (2011, 2012) advocates our urgent need toward a paradigm shift for sustainable
development. Hiwaki and Tong (2006) urge us to take appropriate measures against an encroaching
‘credibility trap’ in most of the advanced and advancing countries. It seems that as long as we follow our
global civilization-market economic activities, we can easily fall very soon into this credibility trap: a
long-term, severe societal lethargy and loss of personal, organizational and social entelechy. Any and all
thinkable appropriate measures against such a severe predicament must counter-balance our global
civilization-market activities by starting vigorously to enrich the respective holistic cultures—the very
source of human entelechy. The SD model in this article shows the possible effects of such cultural
enrichment, in terms of Hiwaki’s societal value and material interactions that replicate his simplified
theoretical framework for sustainable socioeconomic development.
The derivation of a summary expression for Hiwaki’s basic theoretical construct is elaborated in
his life’s work (2011, Appendix: the retrogression and breakdown processes). The SD simulation model
that this article presents draws heavily on Hiwaki’s work in order to test some of the assumptions behind
his sustainable development framework, using the SD modeling method (Forrester 1958, Sterman 2000).
Cast as a methodological application too, the article also shows the use and benefits of SD model analysis
with Mojtahedzadeh’s (1996) pathway participation metric (PPM), implemented in his Digest® software
(Mojtahedzadeh, Andersen and Richardson 2004).
The experimental results show that three feedback loops become prominent in generating the
model dynamics, all balancing or negative (—) loops. The article does not merely translate Hiwaki’s
theoretical work into a SD model to replicate research results. It dares to ask how and why the model
produces the results it does. With the help of the PPM, the article ventures beyond dynamic and
operational thinking, seeks insight from system structure and thereby accelerates circular causality
thinking (Richmond, 1993). The PPM helps detect exactly how changes in loop polarity and prominence
determine sustainable development performance.
Background research
Those of us who use the SD modeling method are not alien to the idea of sustainable development. Harich
(2010), Jones, Seville and Meadows (2002), Moxnes (2000), Otto and Simon (2008) and Randers (2000)
are some of the SD researchers who have made valuable contributions to sustainable development SD
research and practice. To give but one example, Otto and Simon (2008) use a cultural framework derived
from anthropology as they extend previous system dynamics research on online community networks.
There even was a Special Issue of the System Dynamics Review on sustainable development (Saeed and
Radzicki 1998). Yet, the UN Brundtland Commission’s 1987 definition of sustainable development still
seems to hold as: “... development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (cf Goffman 2005).
According to Hiwaki (2011, 2012), a perpetual enrichment of cultural diversity across the world
can provide the needed enriched foundation for human vitality, morality, cooperation, sound common
values and amicable human relations. Such enriched cultures also provide a constantly reinforced ‘stable
bridge’ over the past, present and future of our respective societies. Constructive elements of civilization
do of course contribute to our cultural enrichment, particularly when relevant societies adopt them, within
a long-term process of cultural digestion and fitting modifications. It is worth noting that such cultural
enrichment is cumulative in the long term and also constructive toward a balanced and integral
development of all elements that are beneficial to the respective societies. Our natural, all-embracing
human ‘entelechy’, both in human and in societal terms entails a natural ‘vitality’ generated continuously
by constant and perpetual enrichment of each holistic culture on the surface of our planet. Such
enrichment of culture demands an integral process of extra long-term interactions between the all-
embracing mother Nature and its human constituents, with our humanity as part of Nature, particularly for
the latter’s lasting value and material well-being. Hiwaki argues that for the sake of constantly generating,
maintaining and augmenting our human entelechy and vitality in our global age, we must have a clear and
common long-term, aspiring purpose that links sustainable development to our viable human future.
And then Hiwaki points out how the UN Brundtland Commission later added to its definition that
sustainable development “is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the
exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and
institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs” (cf Hiwaki, 2012). To
Hiwaki, this implies nothing less than a paradigm shift for the sake of promoting sustainable development
that will encourage mutual respect among societal constituents for local collaboration as well as among
diverse societies for global collaboration.
In turn, collaboration requires what Hiwaki (2009) calls an ‘open’ democracy, based on a new
political-legal principle of ‘integrity in diversity’. But our prevailing so-called ‘democracy’ is of a
‘closed’ nature, i.e., a democracy closed by our respective national borders, based on the political-legal
principle of ‘unity in diversity’ that necessitates a strong power of ‘national interest’ to standardize and
unify us, the people, for a rather short-term and shaky practice, with a very strict and strictly artificial
low-abiding zoAtteia. or politeia (
tate). Our prospective global community may require a borderless
‘open’ democracy, argues Hiwaki (2009, 2012), with voluntary collaborations of all peoples and societies
on the basis of ‘integrity in diversity’. All the above important issues require, no doubt, a paradigm shift:
a perpetual sound enrichment of diverse cultures across the world.
Aristotle teaches caution about such assumptions. He advocates moderation and measure in life,
defining apety or virtue as the rational pursuit of a mean between harmful extremes. Excess is bad in
itself (Dierksmeier and Pirson 2009, Karayannis 2007). Modern economists often dismiss Aristotle, Plato
and Xenophon because the ancients did not observe certain features of our modern market economy,
essential to contemporary scholars, e.g., Schumpeter (1954). The Hellenes, as well as most thinkers of the
old Occident and Orient have little to say on marginal utility theory and the non-zero-sum games of
modern trade (Solomon 2004, p. 1023]. But it might just be too easy to dismiss them for this reason. In
Aristotle’s Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics, as well as his Parts of Animals and Politics, Dierksmeier
and Pirson (2009, p. 421) see a political framework of ‘unity-in-diversity’ too.
Yet, in order to accomplish sustainable development through worldwide collaborative endeavors,
we must often ask how to develop a globalized relational mutuality, with shared aspirations and common
long-term interests, in a viable human future, given the lopsided explosive ideologies of civilization in our
modern temporality. To Hiwaki (2012), such ideologies leave a bad aftertaste of materialism,
progressivism, individualism, liberalism, expansionism, reductionism, egotism, antagonism and so on, as
they are largely represented by market competition, economic growth, liberal and libertarian ‘democracy’,
profit-and-utility maximization, individual self-interest and the ‘money-is-might-that-makes-right’ idea.
The aggressive, widespread vested interests in the lopsided ideologies reinforce self-seeking, profit-
oriented, growth-maniac and power-hungry human relations and connections in politico-economic and
socio-educational spheres on the surface of our planet. Such aggressive vested interests and pervasive
ideologies damage the hoped for culture-embraced relational mutuality or “art of relational living”
(Hiwaki 2012), in our respective societies. Such damage or loss can be recovered only by perpetually
enriching the respective cultures across our world.
Presently thinkable appropriate measures against a severe predicament, such as the credibility
trap is, must counter-balance the civilization-market activities by starting vigorously to enrich the
respective holistic cultures—the very source of human entelechy. The SD model in this article shows the
possible effects of such cultural enrichment, in terms of Hiwaki’s value and material interactions that
replicate his simplified theoretical framework for sustainable socioeconomic development. The derivation
of a summary expression for Hiwaki’s basic theoretical construct is elaborated in his life’s work (2011,
Appendix: the retrogression and breakdown processes).
Briefly, however, Hiwaki builds his sustainable development theory around what can be seen as
the dynamic interactions between the ‘value-aspect’ and the ‘material-aspect’ components of human life.
The value-aspect component represents the dynamics of human culture or cultural enrichment, while the
material-aspect module reflects the dynamic, socioeconomic activities’ reactions to cultural enrichment
for a sustainable socioeconomic development. The value-aspect part shows the on-going interactions of a
societal trend preference rate, which represents the long-term society-general time-preference, with a
society’ sensed rate R showing the long-term economy-specific time-preference. The material-aspect part
includes the cumulative or integral variable B, summarily representing the long-term aggregate economic
variables and performance metrics, including the long-term, all encompassing aggregate, both market and
non-market value added.
Hiwaki’s virtuous circle of the value-material interactions entail an untiring endeavor for cultural
enrichment, which brings about a psychological change in a society’s time frame and enhances people’s
positive future orientation. Hiwaki assumes that one cannot easily develop without a cultural foundation
or totally detached from one’s native culture, as it provides the mother tongue, mores, spirit, knowledge,
wisdom, insights, ingenuity and relational mutuality, among other valuable things. Such a solid cultural
foundation can be naturally inter-related with foreign cultures, toward a dynamic and comprehensive
human development. Consequently, a culture can acquire further stimulation to enrich itself, and the
enriched culture becomes in turn the basis for further human development.
Hiwaki moves to represent the future orientation of an enhanced society-general symbolically by a
decline of the societal sensed trend, equivalent to a decline in the society’s present-time preference. The
resultant change in the society’s present time frame then affects coherently, but not equivalently, the time
frame of its socioeconomic activities through time. Hence, the enhanced orientation toward the future of
societal constituents induces a somewhat lagged but coherent decline of the society’s sensed state R. The
lagged downward movement of the economy-specific time-preference rate shows the enhanced society’s
economy-specific future orientation. Alternatively put, the enhanced future orientation, i.e., people’s
psychological change that places greater emphasis on the future, of a society-general shows a decrease in
its sensed trend, which encourages a lagged coherent decline in its sensed state R.
Concurrently, the enhanced society-general future orientation may increase B, a variable
implying the systemic and synergistic growth of the long-term aggregate economic variables and
performance metrics, summarily representing both market and non-market value added. A growing B
implies growth of investment in the human-and-material capital. Such growth in investment can stimulate
the synchronous processes of comprehensive human development, balanced socioeconomic development
and sound cultural enrichment, expanding the societal long-term aggregate value-added, which
encompasses all goods and services produced and transacted both in markets and by other means. Also,
the investment increase can enlarge the stock of human and material capital through time and appreciate
the economy-specific future orientation, thereby shifting the societal sensed state R further downward.
The declining R can in turn influence the society-general future orientation, by also shifting the societal
sensed trend downward.
Meanwhile, the expanded all-encompassing societal value-added of socioeconomic development
feeds back to B thereby simultaneously increasing aggregate performance metrics through time. The
grown in B can now enhance both the economy-specific and society-general future orientation, thereby
inducing what Hiwaki calls a ‘trilateral’ virtuous circle among balanced socioeconomic development,
holistic culture enrichment and comprehensive human development. The on-going dynamic enrichment of
culture can now reinforce the long-term future orientation of societal constituents, inducing a further
decline in the societal sensed trend.
The SD simulation model in this article shows an interpretation of as well an attempt to test some
major assumptions underneath Hiwaki’s sustainable development framework. Following Hiwaki, the
model consists of two interdependent model sectors: the value-aspect model sector and the material-
aspect model sector. Different sets of computed scenarios allow producing experimental results that seem
to corroborate, at least in part, some of Hiwaki’s descriptive and normative arguments. Then the use of
formal SD model analysis helps determine which prominent causal pathways dominate the interdependent
societal value-aspect and economic material-aspect dynamics. First, however, what follows is a very brief
overview of formal SD model analysis.
Model analysis in the SD modeling method
SD formally links system structure and performance. In order to help academics, managers and policy
makers see exactly what part of system structure affects its performance through time, i-e., detect shifting
loop polarity and dominance (Richardson, 1995), SD researchers use tools from discrete mathematics and
graph theory, first to simplify and then to automate model analysis (Gongalves Lerpattarapong and Hines
2000, Kampmann 1996, Mojtahedzadeh 1996 and 2011, Mojtahedzadeh er al. 2004, Oliva 2004, Oliva
and Mojtahedzadeh 2004). Mostly, they build on Nathan Forrester’s (1983) idea to link feedback loop
strength to system eigenvalues.
The PPM plays a crucial role in the analysis of this article’s model. It detects and displays
prominent causal paths and loop structures by computing each selected variable’s dynamics from its slope
and curvature, i.e., its first and second time derivatives. Mojtahedzadeh (2011) and Mojtahedzadeh et al.
(2004) give an extensive overview of the PPM that shows its conceptual underpinnings and mathematical
definition, exactly how it relates to system eigenvalues, and concrete examples to illustrate its merits and
limitations. Briefly, using a recursive heuristic approach, the PPM detects compact structures of chief
causal paths and loops that contribute the most to the performance of a selected variable through time. It
first slices a selected variable’s time path or trajectory into discrete phases, each corresponding to one of
eight possible behavior patterns through time.
Eight archetypal performance dynamics, i.e., behavior patterns through time, can exist within a
single time phase of behavior for a single selected variable of interest: 1) balancing growth, 2) reinforcing
growth, 3) balancing decline, 4) reinforcing decline, 5) linear growth, 6) linear decline, 7) static
equilibrium and 8) dynamic equilibrium (Mojtahedzadeh et al. 2004). Once the selected variable’s time
trajectory is cut into time phases, the PPM determines which causal pathway is most prominent in
generating that variable’s performance, within each time phase. As causal paths combine to form
feedback loops, combinations of such circular paths shape the most influential or prominent loops within
each phase. Through its formal SD model analysis segments, this article contributes to the methodological
stream of SD research on the PPM applications and value (Mojtahedzadeh 2011, Mojtahedzadeh et al.
2004, Oliva and Mojtahedzadeh 2004).
Model description
Built around Hiwaki’s (2011, 2012) sustainable development framework, the SD simulation model
consists of two interdependent model sectors: the value-aspect model sector (Fig. 1 and Table 1) and the
material-aspect model sector (Fig. 2 and Table 2). Within Hiwaki’s sustainable socioeconomic
development framework, the societal trend preference rate is an idea familiar to the SD modeling method,
often used in modeling human expectations (Sterman 2000, p. 634).
The value-aspect model sector
Since the two model sectors are interdependent, the input to the value-aspect model sector (Fig. 1) comes
from the material-aspect model sector (Fig. 2). The Expected B stock (Fig. 2 and Table 2, Eq. 19), which
represents the cumulative or integral rate of consumers’ income expectations, set initially to the society’s
material income B (Fig. 2, Eq. 18), does feed (Eq. 9) the societal Sensed Rate R (Fig. 1, Table 1, Eq. 2).
Closely linked to Hiwaki’s sensed trend rate, the Sensed Rate R stock shows a society’s long-
term, economy-specific time preference. This
societal time preference depends on the society’s
cumulative or integral rate of income expectations. The Expected B stock input to the value-aspect model
sector gets adjusted first by the interest rate i (Eq. 12), as a linear function of i multiplied by time (Eq. 9).
Then is gets smoothed, assuming a first-order smoothing (Eqs 10, 11, 16 and 5).
It is worth noting at least two major concerns about the time to sense R auxiliary converter (Fig. 1
and Eq. 16). First, even if raw data were available for a society to see instantaneously, government
officials and politicians often smooth the reported values, sometimes just to filter out all high-frequency
noise. Even if it fits a society’s political and socioeconomic development agendas, noise can also arise
from forecasting processes, measurement errors as well as from subsequent revisions of the data reported
(Syntetos et al. 2011).
allude
to Now
allusion 22) Allusion
difference to Now|
Cc sensible trend
2 budget allusion
time time
feed sense alter alter sensed
difference sensed R trend
Sensed sensible trend Sensed
feet! State R difference ee) Trend |
time to
sense R
time to
sense Trend
time
Figure 1. The value-aspect model sector.
Second, it does take time to assess a societal time preference, so the time to sense R cannot be
less than the measurement and reporting delays that also play a major role in forming a society’s
expectations. Business, economic, demographic, environmental and other societal data take time to collect
and to report, so at least one quarter of a calendar year must be used for this exogenous constant (Eq. 16).
Table 1. The value aspect model sector equations.
Level (state) or stock variables {unit} Eg. #
‘Allusion to Now(t) = Allusion to Now(t - dt) + (allude to Now) * dt 1
INIT Allusion to Now = Sensed State R / (1 + Sensed Trend * budget time) {US$} 1
Sensed State R(t) = Sensed State R(t - dt) + (alter sensed R) * dt 2
INIT Sensed State R = (feed * budget time) / (1 + Sensed Trend * time to sense R) {USS} 2.1
Sensed Trend(t) = Sensed Trend(t - dt) + (alter sensed trend) * dt 3
INIT Sensed Trend = 0 {1 / year} 3.1
Flow or rate variables {unit}
allude to Now = allusion difference / budget time {USS / year} 4
alter sensed R = feed sense difference / time to sense R {USS / year} 5
alter sensed trend = sensible trend difference / time to sense Trend {1 / year / year} 6
Auxiliary or converter variables and constants {unit}
allusion difference = Sensed State R - Allusion to Now {US$} 7
allusion time = Allusion to Now * budget time {US$ * year} 8
feed = Expected B * (1 + STEP ((i* TIME), 6)) {US$ / year} 9
feed sense difference = feed - Sensed State R / feed time {US$ / year} 10
feed time = 1 {year} ra
i=-0.08 {1 / year} 12
sensible trend = allusion difference / allusion time {1 / year} 13
sensible trend difference = sensible trend - Sensed Trend {1 / year} 14
time to allude to Now = I {year} 15
time to sense R = 0.25 {year} 16
time to sense Trend = 0.25 {year} 17
Having addressed these concerns, a given society’s members and decision makers compare the
society’s long-term, economy-specific time preference to its past values, here quantified by the society’s
Allusion to Now (Fig. 1, Eq. 1). This last stock is an exponentially weighted average of the past values of
the sensed trend interest rate or Sensed State R stock. It represents the value of the Sensed Rate R stock,
one budget time period in the past. Set up for automatic steady-state initialization, Allusion to Now helps
the society as a whole determine whether its cumulative, economy-specific income rate is either rising or
falling through time. The society alludes to now, the present time, again through a first-order exponential
smoothing of Hiwaki’s sensed trend interest rate: Sensed Rate R.
The time horizon for the society’s Allusion to Now is non other than the society’s national budget
time (Eq. 23, Table 2). A one calendar year is a historical time period that most government officials and
politicians would consider adequate for the society they represent and work for to allude to now, its
current or present decision situation. Alternatively, one can think of 1/budget time (Eq. 4) as the rate at
which the society discounts past values of its long-term, economy-specific time preferences.
In addition to helping compute a society’s Allusion to Now, the allusion difference between
Sensed State R and Allusion to Now (Eq. 7), also helps determine that society’s sensible trend as the ratio
of the allusion difference divided by the allusion time auxiliary parameters (Eq. 13). Which in turn allows
10
computing the final output of the value-aspect model sector (Fig. 1), the Sensed Trend stock that
represents a fractional growth rate per year (Eqs 3 and 3.1).
The sensible trend difference between sensible trend and the Sensed Trend (Eq. 14) is the
difference between the society’s sensed trend interest rate or Sensed State R and its Allusion to Now,
expressed as a fraction of the society’s Allusion to Now and then divided its economy-specific budget
time. The sensible trend difference does provide up-to-date information on the most recent rate of change
in the society’s Allusion to Now but, generally, societal perceptions and values do not adjust instantly to
new information.
The Sensed Trend stock of the value-aspect model sector (Fig. 1) permits a society’s perceptions
and values to adjust gradually to changes in its material, economy-specific aspects. A first-order
information smoothing takes place once more (Eqs 13, 14 and 6), with a time delay now determined by
the time to sense Trend parameter (Eq. 7), set equal to the time fo sense R parameter (Eq. 16). Following
the same rationale as above about the timeliness of the information, this lag in the Sensed Trend entails
the minimum time required for a change in the sensible trend to alter the sensed trend that government
officials and politicians subsequently use to influence their society’s material, economy-specific aspects
(Fig. 2). Again, the initial values of the Allusion to Now and the Sensed State R stocks are set to initialize
the value-aspect model sector in steady state, irrespective of the entire model’s exogenous input constant
parameters.
The material-aspect model sector
The material-aspect model sector on Fig. 2 shows a dynamically complex yet simple, i.e., uncomplicated,
macroeconomic multiplier model that relies heavily on research contributions by Samuelson (1939), Low
(1980) and Sterman (2000, p. 719). Compatible with Keynesian economics, the model shows how a
society’s economy-specific spending on goods and services depends on people’s expectations of their
future income or, alternatively, the Expected B stock (Fig. 2 and Eq. 19, Table 2).
Hiwaki’s (2011) sustainable development framework looks at the cumulative or integral income
rate variable B (Eq. 18) as the result of a society’s dynamic, socioeconomic reactions to cultural
enrichment for a balanced socioeconomic development. While spending on goods and services depends
on future income expectations, the society’s Expected B in turn depends on its cumulative income rate B.
Assuming that a society’s entire population is involved, one can think of Hiwaki’s B as the equivalent of
the society’s economy-specific gross domestic product (GDP).
In addition to the two minor, nested feedback loops on Fig. 2, the large, outer feedback of the
material-aspect model sector is a positive or reinforcing loop, which acts as Samuelson’s consumption or
spending multiplier. An increase in B both improves income and raises spending, further increasing
aggregate spending (Eq. 22) and the cumulative or integral rate variable B.
alter B expected alter expected B
Expected
ee ant N " B difference Q Fant e
+ t
SZ
time to ‘ expectation
alter B spend difference formation time
budget
time
private spend and propensity
investment invest government to spend
spending Speiainig
aggregate spending
Figure 2. The material-aspect model sector.
Table 2. The material-aspect model sector equations.
Level (state) or stock variables {unit} Eq.#
B() = B(t- dt) + (alter B) * dt 18
INIT B = ( private investment + government spending) / (1 - propensity to spend) {US$ / year} 18.1
Expected B(t) = Expected B(t - dt) + (alter expected B) * dt 19
INIT Expected B = B {US$ / year} 19.1
Flow or rate variables {unit}
alter B = spend difference / time to alter B {USS / year / year} 20
alter expected B = expected B difference / expectation formation time {USS / year / year} 21
Auxiliary or converter variables and constants {unit}
aggregate spending = spending + government spending { USS / year} 22
budget time = 1 {year} 23
expectation formation time = 2 {year} 24
expected B difference = B - Expected B {US$ / year} 25
government spending = 90 * (1 + Sensed Trend * budget time) {US$ / year} 26
private investment = 10 {USS / year} 27
propensity to spend = 0.8 {unitless} 28
spending = Expected B * propensity to spend {USS / year} 29
spend and invest = aggregate spending + private investment {USS / year} 30
spend difference = spend and invest - B {US$ / year} 31
time to alter B= 1 {year} 32
Glaringly absent from this simple model are society’s economy-specific inventories and supply
chains, so the time to alter B is rather short (Eq. 32). And future cumulative income expectations, i.e., the
Expected B stock, also adjust with a delay to the actual income B (Eq. 24). As the total production flow of
goods and services adjusts to alter B (Eq. 20), with its short delay (Eq. 32), it does indeed alter B through
a first-order smoothing process (Eqs 20 and 31), a rather common assumption in macroeconomic models.
Likewise, a first-order smoothing process feeds the Expected B stock (Eqs 24, 25 and 21).
Despite the minor, nested feedback loops, which contribute to the model’s dynamic complexity,
in addition to the time constant parameters (Eqs 23, 24 and 32), both the private investment and the
propensity to spend parameters (Eq. 28) are exogenous too. Yet, another interesting model sector feature
is that, while the two stocks’ initial conditions are individually sensible, together they create what
Sterman (2000, p. 719) calls: “a simultaneous initial value equation” situation, as Eqs 18.1 and 19.1
clearly show.
Experimental results
Figure 3 shows four computed scenarios for the societal Allusion to Now stock through time. Having
initialized the entire SD model at steady state, the simulation results show a dynamic equilibrium
behavior until time = 6 (years). Then the feed converter variable (Eq. 9, Table 1) perturbs the system from
its dynamic equilibrium, thereby altering the dynamic behavior of the societal Allusion to Now stock,
depending on the values that the 7 parameter (Eq. 12) takes.
As the i parameter values increase from -0.08 to 0.08, the societal Allusion to Now changes from
a set of declining behavior patterns through time to increasing dynamics. Whether rising or falling, in the
long term, the societal Allusion to Now does so linearly. In the short term, however, its behavior patterns
show some most interesting, non-linear transition dynamics, including a rather abrupt kink under scenario
or run #1 on Fig. 3. More about this later, however, in the feedback-loop structure or SD model analysis
sub-section that follows below.
Allusion to Now: 1 - 2-3-4
2900: wae
0.08 ———.,
-2100+
t 7
Years
Figure 3. Computed scenarios for the societal Allusion to Now stock through time.
Figure 4 shows two phase plots that, like all phase plots do, they hide the time dimension. But the
little arrows on the phase plot of Fig. 4a show its direction, as the relation between the material-aspect
stocks B and Expected B transitions to a new dynamic equilibrium, once the system gets perturbed from
its initial dynamic equilibrium at time = 6 (years). The abrupt change triggers an initial decline in both B
and Expected B, causing both income and spending to decline too but, after the systemic discontinuity on
the lower left corner of Fig. 4a, both B and Expected B start rising again, with B making it so faster than
the Expected B stock. Once societal future income expectations catch up with the rising actual income (on
the middle-right of Fig. 4a), then they continue to increase, while B begins to decline. But a society is
prone to eventually lower its future income expectations too, so that both B and Expected B begin to
decline in tandem, linearly, until the relation between the material-aspect stocks B and Expected B
transitions to its new dynamic, sustainable equilibrium, shown slightly above its initial dynamic
equilibrium on the lower left corner of Fig. 4a.
Most interestingly, the phase plot on Fig. 4b seems to confirm Hiwaki’s (2012) theoretical
construct for sustainable development. Specifically, Hiwaki expects an extra long-term schedule of the
dynamic interaction between the Sensed State R and the Sensed Trend stocks to take the form of the
“bow-like’ ODP curve on Fig. 4b. Alternatively put, the continuous interactions between a society’s
acceleration of its future orientation, i.e., a declining Sensed Trend through time, and the lagged future
orientation of an economy-specific domain, i.e., a declining Sensed State R, produce the ‘bow-like’ ODP
dynamics. Such an analogical path is Hiwaki’s theoretical and normative representation of sustainable
socioeconomic development, which this model in part corroborates, according to the 45° assumption of
the lead-lag interactions between the societal Sensed State R and Sensed Trend stocks on Fig. 4b.
Expected 8 Sented Trend
1600
320%
i
1300 2600 500
8
250
Sensed State R
Figure 4. Phase plots for i = -0.08: a) B vs. Expected B and b) Sensed State R vs. Sensed Trend.
Recall that rather abrupt kink under scenario or run #1 on Fig. 3? Figure 5 shows many more
abrupt kinks, under its new set of four computed scenarios for the societal Sensed Trend stock. Initially,
until time = 6 (years), the simulation results again show a dynamic equilibrium behavior pattern. Then the
feed converter variable (Eq. 9) perturbs the system from its dynamic equilibrium, thereby altering the
dynamic behavior of the societal Sensed Trend stock, depending once more on the now different values
that the 7 parameter (Eq. 12) takes.
As the values that the / parameter (Eq. 12) now takes decline from -0.08 to -0.02, the societal
Sensed Trend stock shows a whole set of systemic discontinuities, caused by the dynamic
interdependence of the SD model’s feedback loops. The feedback-loop structure or SD model analysis
sub-section below details which of the model’s feedback loops become most prominent as they cause the
fascinating dynamics that the societal Sensed Trend stock shows on Fig. 5.
Sensed Trend: 1- 2-3-4 -
2
-24
o 15 30
Years
2
Figure 5. Computed scenarios for the societal Sensed Trend stock through time.
It is worth noting for now that, as the i parameter values increase from -0.08 to -0.02, they push
the systemic discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend stock farther and farther into the future.
Alternatively put, the higher the decline in both the value-aspect and the material-aspect of a society is,
the more likely it is to cause a systemic discontinuity early on in the societal Sensed Trend stock. Figure 6
shows the pronounced effect that an increase in both the value-aspect and the material-aspect of a society
might have on pushing an abrupt systemic discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend stock farther into the
future. When i = -0.08, then the systemic discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend stock occurs at time
t= 14 years, but when the society’s negative trend increases to a value of i = -0.02, then the systemic
discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend occurs at time t = 52 years.
60 9 t {years}
18
14
Figure 6. Putting off the political transformation of time into space.
It is understandable why a society in our modern temporality might attempt to push cathartic
discontinuities far into the future. The political systems in and about which we all live have been designed to
ignore system structure and the dynamics it generates. They try so hard to focus all of their and our
attention on one-time events, but they also seem to transform time into ugly spaces through one-time
events, as they create ugly, systemic discontinuities through time. But at least some of us do persist!
Feedback-loop structure or SD model analysis
The pathway participation metric helps detect and confirm the shifting link polarity and prominence of
the feedback loops that determine the dynamics seen in the experimental results. Within each sector,
model’s stocks are embedded in multiple feedback loops, with variable loop lengths (Table 3). For
example, the societal Allusion to Now stock is embedded within two feedback loops, while the societal
Sensed Trend stock within three. And these circular structures entail lengths of 2 and 20 for the societal
Allusion to Now stock, and 2, 17 and 20 for the societal Sensed Trend stock, respectively.
Table 3. Feedback loop analysis of the stocks in the entire model.
# Stock Number of feedback loops Feedback loop lengths
1 Allusion to Now 2 2 and 20
2 B 4 2, 8, 17 and 20
3 Expected B 4 2, 8, 17 and 20
4 Sensed State R 3 2,17 and 20
5 Sensed Trend 3 2,17 and 20
The feedback loop length of two for the societal Allusion to Now stock means that a change in
Allusion to Now will have to go through two variable before it comes back to alter the value of the same
stock. Under Phase #4 on Table 4, it is plain to see that an increase in Allusion to Now causes a negative
change in the allusion difference converter. Yet an increase in allusion difference will cause the allude to
Now flow to rise, thereby feeding the societal Allusion to Now stock.
But in order to appreciate how valuable Mojtahedzadeh’s PPM is, it helps to zoom in on the
systemic discontinuity that the societal Sensed Trend stock shows (Fig. 7). Recall that the system gets
perturbed from its initial dynamic equilibrium at time ¢ = 6 years. But the system discontinuity does not
occur until the time phase #6 on Table 4, i-e., between ¢ = 13.25 and t= 13.86 years, when the prominent
causal path is the societal Allusion to Now.
Subsequent to the systemic discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend, when the societal Allusion
to Now is the prominent loop, for a short while, under phase #7 and between ¢ = 13.87 and ¢ = 14.66
years, the societal Sensed Trend pathway becomes prominent. Then again this pathway passes its
prominence control back to the societal Allusion to Now under phase #8, but it regains it under phase #9,
which ends when all dynamics has been absorbed into an attractor, leaving the system in a sustainable
state of negative feedback.
In conjunction with Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 8 shows the time phases and the prominent causal
pathways that cause the Sensed Trend stock dynamics (Fig. 7). Despite their short loop length or
16
‘reachability’, the three minor feedback loops on Fig. 8 are nested within the much lengthier feedback
loops of Table 3. And PPM computes their prominence as it enables us venture beyond dynamic and
operational thinking, seek insight from system structure and thereby accelerate circular causality thinking
(Richmond, 1993). The PPM helps detect exactly how changes in loop polarity and prominence determine
self-organization performance among the most vital system components: the circular feedback loops.
Sensed Trend
3
0 8 15 22 30
Years
Figure 7. Zooming in on the systemic discontinuity that the societal Sensed Trend stock shows (i = -0.08).
Table 4. Prominent pathways that cause the Sensed Trend stock dynamics.
Phase Time phase Prominent pathway
# interval {year} { — : positive (+) causal link and (—>) : negative (—) causal link }
1 0t06 Sensed Trend (—>) sensible trend difference — alter sensible trend — Sensed Trend
2 6.01 to 6.22 Sensed State R (—>) feed sensed difference — alter sensed R — Sensed State R
3 6.23 to 6.68 Sensed Trend (—>) sensible trend difference — alter sensible trend — Sensed Trend
4 6.69 to 7.64 Allusion to Now (—) allusion difference — allude to Now > Allusion to Now
5 7.65 to 13.24 Sensed State R (—>) feed sensed difference — alter sensed R — Sensed State R
6 13.25 to 13.86 Allusion to Now (—) allusion difference — allude to Now > Allusion to Now
7 13.87 to 14.66 Sensed Trend (—>) sensible trend difference — alter sensible trend + Sensed Trend
8 14.67 to 15.18 Allusion to Now (—) allusion difference — allude to Now —> Allusion to Now
9 15.19 to 30 Sensed Trend (—>) sensible trend difference — alter sensible trend — Sensed Trend
It is important to keep in mind that these are not ceteris paribus results. While the feedback loops
on Table 4 and Fig. 8 are the prominent pathways that cause the Sensed Trend stock dynamics, the rest of
the feedback loops on Fig. | and Fig. 2 are still active, also contributing to the system’s dynamic behavior
patterns through time.
Discussion and conclusion
Admittedly, Richardson’s hair might stand on end with all these exogenous parameters in this article’s SD
model. Particularly since his latest definition of system dynamics is “the use of informal maps and formal
models with computer simulation to uncover and understand the endogenous sources of system behavior”
(2011, p. 241), while systems thinking (ST) entails “the mental effort to uncover the endogenous sources
of system behavior (2011, p. 241).
Phase alter sensed
# trend
-a sensible trend Q Seusel
difference Trend
1,3,7and9
time to
sense Trend
iter
feed sense al
difference sensed R
Sensed
State qu
2ands
time
allude
o to Now
#eands allusion Q "Foes
difference to Now]
T
Figure 8. Time phases (left, sa Table 4) and prominent loops causing the Sensed Trend stock dynamics.
Thankfully, Mojtahedzadeh’s pathway participation metric comes to the rescue, with its analysis
of endogenously shifting prominent structure and polarity phases, helping to reveal the SD model analysis
results. Indeed, tools such as PPM can help make sense of the dynamically complex structure of SD
models, even if Oliva (2004, p. 331) finds SD keen in understanding system performance, “not structure
per se”, in lieu of its core tenet that system structure causes performance. Undeniably, while looking for
systemic leverage (Georgantzas and Ritchie-Dunham, 2003), decision makers and modelers do play with
structural changes for superior performance. Model analysis tools such as the PPM help articulate
structural complexity and thereby enable both effective and efficient strategy designs.
Hiwaki’s optimal development path (ODP) for sustainable development, which this study’s SD
simulation model corroborates on Fig. 4b, suggests much more than a positive, one-directional
development process, based on extant sustainable development theories. The ODP path explicitly captures
both positive and negative development processes. So it can serve as a dynamic general theory of
socioeconomic development, linked to the dynamics (enrichment or impoverishment) of culture and the
concurrent socio-psychological alterations of the society-general and economy-specific time frames.
The lead-lag assumption behind Hiwaki’s ODP, with no unique and universal point to converge
upon through time, gives us a clue toward a dynamic, two-directional development, namely, the positive
processes comprising the PD growth and the DO maturation process, as well as the negative
processes comprising the OD retrogression process and the DF breakdown process. Under this
scheme, point D shows the important turning point on the ‘bow-like’ path, whose slope becomes exactly
the same as the ‘45° ray’, implying that both the societal Sensed Trend and the Sensed State R can change
at the same rate of change (Fig. 4b).
And Hiwaki does well and good too to raise the issue of the meaning the so-called ‘democracy’ in
our modern temporality. The meaning of this political system has been a vexing issue since the classical
Hellas, especially in the way Aristotle treats the subject in his Politics. For it has to do with the meaning
that the moderns attached to democracy. This modern meaning has little in common with what Aristotle
stated. If we read his text correctly, democracy is a case of xapexPatixy xoditcia (discursive politeia).
But the moderns, when they tried to free themselves from the shackles of the various despotic
governments, they turned to what they thought would serve them as the government of the people by the
people and for the people. They used the word democracy but not in its original context. To this very day,
the modern so-called democracies suffer from a variety of abuses and distortions, in most cases turning
into or becoming governments controlled by parties. That being the case, the modern democracies are
all... discursive states (Anton 2010).
Without suggesting our modernity’s return to antiquity, Georgantzas and Contogeorgis (2012)
look at the principles behind Athenians’ authentic democracy, which can help our modern temporality
metamorphose for the benefit of all concerned. Democracy’s multiple equality, liberty and civic-
accountability dimension bundles can easily take their role in a multi-perspective dialectic about their
dynamic societal implications.
In this context, democracy is seen an ideal, neither painless for nations to practice nor any less
painful for business corporations to embrace (Ackoff 1994). Within its evolution from a ‘profit-making
machine’ to a ‘biological organization’ to a ‘social system’, the business enterprise continues to depend
on the performance of its parts, i.e., functional units and product lines. But the most important aspect of
each part’s performance is its interactivity with other parts that determines the performance of the
enterprise as a whole. As it aims for excellence or forever excelling, i.e., aicv apioteberv (aien aristeuein),
a firm’s managers must seek @//Ge1a (the truth), ag@ovia (the plenty), to aya0év (the good) and
aicOntiky (aesthetics). These are the four ‘ontic’ dimensions, the hellenic pillars of enterprise
development as a societal organization, at least as Ackoff sees them (1994, pp. 49-50).
Is it just a coincidence that, along his advances against global warming, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson,
The fifth President of the Republic of Iceland, refused to let his country’s people pay for the damage
caused by private companies, namely the banks, and called for a referendum in 2010? “You reach these
crossroads, where on the one side there are the financial markets’ demands and on the other lays the
people's democratic will. Between these choices, my answer is and always has been clear: the people's
democratic will must prevail!”, remarks Iceland’s President (Avgeropoulos and Kouremenos 2011).
How does a society in our modern temporality experience time and how do modern Hellenes and
Italians associate this fact with the current crisis facing their respective countries? And is it yet another
coincidence that the official current recession in Hellas is about eight percent, i-e., equal to the i parameter
value that produces the systemic discontinuity in the societal Sensed Trend stock on Fig. 7? Attempting a
connection between a country’s imperium and fiscus, along the idea that the true causes of our fiscal
crises can also be culture-specific, it might be useful to persist on time, as well as on our claustrophobic
obsession with and insistence on it.
If we understand our past as if it were a museum and we thereby cancel our future, as the purpose
of the fulfillment of our desires goes beyond the requirement of work toward future success. The meaning
for us of going forward is to restore the past. So rather than open up in time for the future, we passively
enclose ourselves in space, either avoiding or constantly deferring our creative outlet to reality. Our aim
cannot be to extinguish but to reconcile with out past co-aligning ourselves with the time of our modern
temporality.
The political systems in and about which we all live must be re-designed to eliminate the need to
transform time into space. Sound cultures can help us stop recycling years of time, without structural
changes in order to feel safe. In the end, we end up avoiding public places and politics altogether.
The wisdom of pain ... the evil of ourselves ... we need a clear picture of us, each one but also
collectively to form a new self, a unity of societal conscience in a world of constant change, a self image
that can and will cope with adversity, a unity consciousness that charges positively and not negatively our
experience of time. Only to the extent that we can have a positive experience of time, without
transforming it into ugly spaces, i.e., discontinuous points in time, can we sustain a hope for a viable
human future, much brighter than our deeply troubled modernity.
20
References
Ackoff RL. 1994. The Democratic Corporation: A Radical Prescription for Recreating Corporate America
and Rediscovering Success. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Anton JP. 2010. Epes Moditixéc: H Emotpopy tov Eddjvev (Political Eros: The Hellenes’ Return).
Midntog (Miletus): Athens, Hellas.
Avgeropoulos Y. and Kouremenos A. 2011. The Viking Way. A Small Planet production for Greek
Public Television ERT, Neos Kosmos, Athens, Hellas, available online (3/15/12):
http://www.smallplanet.gr/en/documentaries/chronologically/201 1-2012/305-the-viking-way.
Buffett WE. 2011. Stop coddling the super-rich, New York Times (15 Aug.): A21.
Calmes J. 2011. Obama tax plan would ask more of millionaires, New York Times (18 Sep.): Al.
Dierksmeier C and Pirson M. 2009. Oikonomia versus chrematistike: learning from Aristotle about the
future orientation of business management. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 417-430.
Forrester JW. 1958. Industrial dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers. Harvard Business
Review 36(4): 37-66.
Forrester N. 1983. Eigenvalue analysis of dominant feedback loops. In Plenary Session Papers
Proceedings of the \st International System Dynamics Society Conference, Paris, France: 178-202.
Friedman TL. 2011. Something’s happening here, New York Times (12 Oct.): A23.
Georgantzas NC and Contogeorgis GD. 2012. Societal metamorphosis via authentic democracy
principles. Human Systems Management 31(1): 65-83.
Georgantzas NC and Ritchie-Dunham JL. 2003. Designing high-leverage strategies and tactics. Human
Systems Management 22(1): 217-227.
Goffman E. 2005. Defining Sustainability, Defining the Future. Available online (3/19/12):
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/sustain/overview.php.
Gongalves P, Lerpattarapong C and Hines JH. 2000. Implementing formal model analysis. In Proceedings
of the 18th International System Dynamics Society Conference, 6-10 August, Bergen, Norway.
Harich J. 2010. Change resistance as the crux of the environmental sustainability problem. System
Dynamics Review 26: 35-72.
Hiwaki K. 2009. ‘Integrity in diversity’ for an ‘open’ democracy. In GE Lasker and K Hiwaki (eds),
Personal and Spiritual Development in the World of Cultural Diversity—V olume VI. International
Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, Canada, pp. 1-5.
Hiwaki K. 2011. Culture and Economics in the Global Community: A Framework for Socioeconomic
Development. Gower Publishing Limited: Surrey, UK.
Hiwaki K. 2012. Sustainable development requires diverse sound cultures. Human Systems Management
31(1): 17-31.
Hiwaki K and Tong J. 2006. Credibility trap: Japan today and China tomorrow. Human Systems
Management 25(1): 31-50.
Jones A, Seville D and Meadows D. 2002. Resource sustainability in commodity systems: the sawmill
industry in the Northern Forest. System Dynamics Review 18: 171-204.
Kampmann CE. 1996. Feedback loops gains and system behavior. In Proceedings of the 12th
International System Dynamics Society Conference, 21-25 July, Cambridge MA.
Karayannis AD. 2007. A pyaiocdAnvixn Hpatonopia ata Orcovoyika (A ncient-Greek Pioneering in
Economics). Papazisis Publishers: Athens, Hellas.
Krugman P. 2011. Confronting the malefactors. New York Times (7 Oct.): A27.
Low G. 1980. The multiplier-accelerator model of business cycles interpreted from a system dynamics
perspective. In J. Randers (ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Pegasus
Communications: Waltham, MA.
Meadows DH. 1989. System dynamics meets the press. System Dynamics Review 5(1): 68-80.
Melissaratos A and Slabbert NJ. 2009. Innovation: The Key to Prosperity, Technology and America’s
Role in the 21st Century Global Economy. Montagu House: New York, NY.
Mojtahedzadeh MT. 1996. A Path Taken: Computer-A ssisted Heuristics for Understanding Dynamic
Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, SUNY: Albany NY.
Mojtahedzadeh MT. 2011. Consistency in explaining model behavior based on its feedback structure.
System Dynamics Review 27(4): 358-373.
Mojtahedzadeh MT, Andersen D and Richardson GP. 2004. Using Digest® to implement the pathway
participation method for detecting influential system structure. System Dynamics Review 20(1): 1-
20.
Moxnes E. 2000. Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of feedback and policies for
sustainable development. System Dynamics Review 16: 325-348.
Oliva R and Mojtahedzadeh MT. 2004. Keep it simple: a dominance assessment of short feedback loops.
In Proceedings of the 22nd International System Dynamics Society Conference, 25-29 July, Keble
College, Oxford University, Oxford UK.
Oliva R. 2004. Model structure analysis through graph theory: partition heuristics and feedback structure
decomposition. System Dynamics Review 20(4): 313-336.
Otto P. and Simon M. 2008. Dynamic perspectives on social characteristics and sustainability in online
community networks. System Dynamics Review 24: 321-347.
Paxman J. 2011. Michael Moore: ‘Occupy’ movement has ‘touched a nerve’, BBC Newsnight (18 Oct.
2011), available online (19 Mar. 2012): news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9619110.stm.
Randers J. 2000. From limits to growth to sustainable development or SD (sustainable development) in a
SD (system dynamics) perspective. System Dynamics Review 16: 213-224.
Rawls JB. 1999. A Theory of Justice (revised edition). Belknap-Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA.
Richardson GP. 1995. Loop polarity, loop dominance, and the concept of dominant polarity. System
Dynamics Review 11(1): 67-88.
Richardson GP. 2011. Reflections on the foundations of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review
27(3): 219-243.
Richmond B. 1993. Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics
Review 9(2): 113-133.
Samuelson P. 1939. Interactions between the multiplier analysis and the principle of acceleration. Review
of Economic Statistics 21: 75-79.
Schumpeter J. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Solomon RC. 2004. Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies 25(6): 1021-1043.
Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex W orld. Irwin
McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.
Syntetos AA, Georgantzas NC, Boylan JE and Dangerfield BC. 2011. Judgement and supply chain
dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(6): 1138-1158.
Wolff RD. 2012. Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism. City Lights Publishers: San Francisco,
CA.
Zeleny M. 2012. Crisis and transformation: On the corso and ricorso of human systems. Human Systems
Management 31(1): 49-63.
