1
   

Wbat do you know about Path Dependency?

 
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:44 am
2 chapters finished ;-) some 130 pages so far. oh boy, will it be a monster, with 4 more chapters to go...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:47 am
Aw, that's only 390 pages!

-gulp-

Well, good for you on the 130 pages thing, tho!
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:51 am
piece of cake, soz (NOT!!!)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 01:01 pm
I'm 22 pages into a piece of garbage right now. I find the best approach is just to put down words without any regard for whether they are accurate or even intelligible. Then, when it's time to revise it, get really drunk, pass out, and send it off as is. I guarantee no one will ever hassle you to write anything again.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:48 pm
Re: Wbat do you know about Path Dependency?
billy falcon wrote:
What do you know about it?

It happens when there are increasing returns in the consumption and the production of something. The first prominent description of the principle -- not under this name though -- is commonly ascribed to Alfred Marshal's Principles of Economics, first published in 1895. Marshal used the idea to explain why the British cutlery industry was concentrated in Sheffield. The answer is there's no good reason at all. Workers specialized in making cutlery just came to Sheffield because that's where the cutlery manufacturers were. Cutlery manufacturers moved to Sheffield because that's where the specialized workers were. Everyone was there because everyone else was there. Path dependency and increasing returns have been successfully used to describe similar clusters: the film industry in Hollywood, the computer industry in Silicon Valley, and top-notch universities in New England.

Paul Krugman, before becoming a pundid, published a lot of interesting work on path dependency and increasing returns. He lays out the issue in layman-friendly language in The self-organizing economy, which I highly recommend if you really want to know more about the subject. For web-accessible stuff, Googleing his inofficial page for "increasing returns" gives you a lot of interesting stuff. My favorite article is Supply, Demand, and English Food, in which he uses the concept to explain how English food became as bad as it is, and remained so bad for over a century.

PS: The QUERTY story is an urban myth, going back to a paper by Mr. Dvorak in which he claimed that his own keyboard is superior to QUERTY. There is no other source for the superiority of the Dvorak keyboard except Mr.Dvorak himself. For details, see a classic paper called The fable of the Keys, originally published 1990 in the Journal of Law and Economics.

Hope that helped.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 03:54 pm
Interestinger and interestinger!

I was going to ask if the Krugman that Dag referred to was Paul Krugman -- I know he is mostly an economist.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:10 pm
Yup, that's him. This was the work for which he got the John Bates Clark medal, the only price in Economics that's harder to get than the Nobel Price. (You have to do Nobel-worthy research, have to be under 40, it's only awarded every two years, and never to more than one recipient. The majority of JBC medalists later moved on to win Nobel prices. All of them graciously accepted, in spite of it being such a cheap, easy win for them.) As an aside, my dream is that Krugman wins a Nobel for his academic work in October 2004, just before the election. There will be major finger-crossing for him over here in October 2004.

PS: For what it's worth, Krugman isn't happy about the role ascribed to Brian Arthur by the popular press.

In 'The Legend of Arthur', Paul Krugman wrote:
AN INCREASING RETURNS CHRONOLOGY
SYNOPSIS: Chronology of important papers on increasing returns

This chronology is a supplement to my Slate article "The legend of Arthur". Since the severity of that article's claims may raise disbelief - surely his claims to have introduced increasing returns to economics can't be a complete fraud - I thought this might be useful.

1975-78

A number of economic theorists - Mike Spence, Avinash Dixit, Joe Stiglitz, Kelvin Lancaster, Steve Salop- develop theoretical models of "monopolistic competition", that is, competition under conditions of increasing returns. Perhaps the most influential of these papers is that by Dixit and Stiglitz in the American Economic Review, 1977; other economists take note and begin looking for ways to make use of the new theoretical tools.

1979

Several international trade theorists independently develop monopolistic competition models of trade; I win the race to publication by a nose, getting "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade" into print that November.

Brian Arthur, by his own account, first begins thinking about increasing returns; he talks to Victor Norman in November, and comes away believing that Norman cannot understand the idea.

1980

Dixit and Norman's book, Theory of International Trade, which was in galleys during 1979, is published; one chapter is devoted to increasing returns. An international network of economists working on increasing returns and international trade begins to form.

Brian Arthur is thinking and talking about increasing returns, but hasn't written anything yet.

1981

Elhanan Helpman of Tel-Aviv University publishes a classic paper that integrates increasing returns with conventional theories of international trade. Mike Spence publishes "The learning curve and competition", which shows how increasing returns in high-technology industries lead to the domination of markets by a small number of firms.

Brian Arthur is still thinking about increasing returns.

1982

A major conference on increasing returns and international trade takes place in Geneva, marred only by the absence of Helpman, who is invading Lebanon that week. By this time the area has a name: the "new trade theory". My own work on increasing returns gets me tenure at MIT.

Brian Arthur continues to think about the subject.

1983

Paul Romer completes his dissertation at the University of Chicago, on increasing returns and economic growth; soon his work becomes the basis of the "new growth theory". Meanwhile, Helpman and I decide that the proliferation of papers in the "new trade theory" has reached the point where a synthesis is needed; we begin writing our magnum opus, Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the International Economy.

Brian Arthur finally writes a paper.

1984

Helpman and I complete our work on Market Structure and Foreign Trade. Also, the Handbook of International Economics, published that year, contains Helpman's survey chapter "Increasing returns, imperfect markets, and trade theory".

Brian Arthur's paper is rejected on its first submission for publication, and his seminar at Harvard goes badly. He concludes that economists are simply unwilling to admit that increasing returns exist.

0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:38 pm
So this principle could be applied to the aggregation of some immigrant groups in the United States in certain professions, no? As in, so-and-so comes over and drives a cab because his cousin drives a cab and can get him into it. He, in turn, does the same for his brother and nephew when they come over. Just to pick one example...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 04:55 pm
And Indians with hotels...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:02 pm
Hadn't really noticed that, but in retrospect -- especially in the Netherlands, it seems to me now...
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:11 pm
The principle can be applied to almost anything. That's a part of it's beauty.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:39 pm
Just covered transposable elements (and their activation at different stages of the life cycle in Zea mays). Works there...
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:21 pm
Are they also disposable? If so, I'd just chuck'em. Who do they think they are anyways?
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:11 pm
The concept of path dependency in biology is one reason there are no such thing, here on earth at this particular time, as flying horses. Most mammals long ago committed to the body design of four main appendages--four legs, two arms plus two legs, two legs plus two wings. Indeed, looking back to those animals that are not considered mammals but probably share a common ancestor with them we see the same body design in birds and reptiles. It is not until we examine simpler life forms such as insects and arachnids that we see a different design choice manifesting a different path taken.

This is not to say some sort of flying horse might not still evolve. That evolution would be subject to all relevant selection pressures in its environment. But at this point it is highly unlikely that such a flying horse would evolve from what we know, today, as the equine line. Just as wings and eyes have seen parallel evolution in vastly different species, it is so possible for a new "horse" to evolve with the ability to fly. It is an evolutionary "Good Trick". But because of the aforementioned selection pressures it would look much different.

JM
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 01:16 pm
I just thought of another example of path dependency -- stereotypes.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 01:23 pm
*nods* A lot of times what people call "resistance to change" is path dependency. Stereotypes are something that reinforces resistance to change.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 01:49 pm
sozobe wrote:
I just thought of another example of path dependency -- stereotypes.

Or online communities. Everybody from Abuzz is here because everybody else from Abuzz is here.
0 Replies
 
billy falcon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 09:58 pm
Permit me to enter into the colony of the pointy headed. My dissertation is 335 pp. including a 20 p. Bibliography. It took a year for the first 30p and three years in all. My wife had to type it three times; pre-computer, hundreds of footnotes, querty electric. Closest we ever came to a divorce.

Don't give up the ship. (chip? whip? ****? spit? pit?,
fit? grit? I am recalling words that described the effort.) Don't give up the ship. I was forty five when I completed mine.

A PH.D. is someone who kows more and more about less and less until he/she knows everything about nothing.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2004 10:19 pm
Hey, good for you on the PhD!

John Kerry is rather path-dependant, too, at least in getting the Dem nomination.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:52:52