TY  - GEN
A1  - Battiston, Stefano
A1  - Farmer, J. Doyne
A1  - Flache, Andreas
A1  - Garlaschelli, Diego
A1  - Haldane, Andrew G.
A1  - Heesterbeek, Hans
A1  - Hommes, Cars
A1  - Jaeger, Carlo
A1  - May, Robert
A1  - Scheffer, Marten
T1  - COMPLEX SYSTEMS Complexity theory and financial regulation
T2  - Science
N2  - Traditional economic theory could not explain, much less predict, the near collapse of the financial system and its long-lasting effects on the global economy. Since the 2008 crisis, there has been increasing interest in using ideas from complexity theory to make sense of economic and financial markets. Concepts, such as tipping points, networks, contagion, feedback, and resilience have entered the financial and regulatory lexicon, but actual use of complexity models and results remains at an early stage. Recent insights and techniques offer potential for better monitoring and management of highly interconnected economic and financial systems and, thus, may help anticipate and manage future crises.
Y1  - 2016
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad0299
SN  - 0036-8075
SN  - 1095-9203
VL  - 351
SP  - 818
EP  - 819
PB  - American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science
CY  - Washington
ER  - 
TY  - GEN
A1  - Battiston, Stefano
A1  - Farmer, Doyne
A1  - Flache, Andreas
A1  - Garlaschelli, Diego
A1  - Haldane, Andy
A1  - Heesterbeek, Hans
A1  - Hommes, Cars
A1  - Jaeger, Carlo
A1  - May, Robert
A1  - Scheffer, Marten
T1  - Financial complexity: Accounting for fraud Response
T2  - Science
Y1  - 2016
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6283.302
SN  - 0036-8075
SN  - 1095-9203
VL  - 352
SP  - 302
EP  - 302
PB  - American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science
CY  - Washington
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Mielke, Jahel
A1  - Vermassen, Hannah
A1  - Ellenbeck, Saskia
A1  - Milan, Blanca Fernandez
A1  - Jaeger, Carlo
T1  - Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view
JF  - Global biogeochemical cycles
N2  - Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
KW  - Sustainability science
KW  - Stakeholder involvement typology
KW  - Energy transition
KW  - Transformative research
Y1  - 2016
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001
SN  - 2214-6296
SN  - 2214-6326
VL  - 17
SP  - 71
EP  - 81
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Amsterdam
ER  -