2.17 Appendix 2: Loss of Synchronization in Hierarchical Systems
33
the top. In other words, adjustment processes in these systems are faster at lower
hierarchical levels (such as the atoms) as compared to higher ones (such as planetary
systems). This means that lower level variables can adjust quickly to the constraints
set by the higher level variables. As a result, the higher levels basically control the
lower levels and the system remains stable. Similarly, social groups tend to take
decisions more slowly than the individuals who form them. Likewise, organizations
and states tend to change more slowly than the individuals who form them (at least
this is how it used to be in the past).
Such “time-scale separation” implies that the dynamics of a system is determined
only by relatively few variables, which are typically located at the higher levels of
the hierarchy. Monarchies and oligarchies are good examples for this. In currentday socio-political and economic systems, however, the higher hierarchical levels
sometimes change so fast that the lower levels have difficulties to keep pace. Laws
are now often enacted more quickly than companies and people can adapt. In the long
run, this is likely to cause systemic instability, as time-scale separation is destroyed,
so that many more variables begin to influence the dynamics of the system. Such
attempts to make mutual adjustments on different hierarchical levels could potentially
lead to turbulence, “chaos”, breakdown of synchronization, or fragmentation of the
system. In fact, while it is known that delays in adaptation can destabilize a system, we
are putting many of our problems on the long finger (e.g. public debts, implications
of demographic change, nuclear waste, or climate change). This creates a concrete
danger that our society will eventually lose control and become unstable.
References
1. Y. Sugiyama et al., Traffic jams without bottlenecks? Experimental evidence for the physical
mechanisms of the formation of a jam. New Journal of Physics 10, 033001 (2008), http://iop
science.iop.org/1367-2630/10/3/033001.
2. J. Sterman and John D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World (McGraw-Hill, 2000).
3. D. Helbing and S. Lämmer (2005) Supply and production networks: From the bullwhip effect
to business cycles. Page 33–66 in: D. Armbruster, A. S. Mikhailov, and K. Kaneko (eds.)
Networks of Interacting Machines: Production Organization in Complex Industrial Systems
and Biological Cells (World Scientific, Singapore).
4. J. Nienhaus, A. Ziegenbein and P. Schoensleben, How human behaviour amplifies the bullwhip
effect. A study based on the beer distribution game. Production Planning & Control: The
Management of Operations 17(6), 547–557 (2006).
5. D. Dorner, The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations (Basic
Books, 1997).
6. D. Helbing (2013): Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497, 51–59.
7. Duncan J. Watts, Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us (Crown Business,
2012).
8. J. Wilfling, Unheil: Warum jeder zum Mörder werden kann (Heyne, 2010).
9. M. Perc, K. Donnay and D. Helbing (2013) Understanding recurrent crime as system-immanent
collective behavior. PLOS ONE 8(10), e76063.
33
the top. In other words, adjustment processes in these systems are faster at lower
hierarchical levels (such as the atoms) as compared to higher ones (such as planetary
systems). This means that lower level variables can adjust quickly to the constraints
set by the higher level variables. As a result, the higher levels basically control the
lower levels and the system remains stable. Similarly, social groups tend to take
decisions more slowly than the individuals who form them. Likewise, organizations
and states tend to change more slowly than the individuals who form them (at least
this is how it used to be in the past).
Such “time-scale separation” implies that the dynamics of a system is determined
only by relatively few variables, which are typically located at the higher levels of
the hierarchy. Monarchies and oligarchies are good examples for this. In currentday socio-political and economic systems, however, the higher hierarchical levels
sometimes change so fast that the lower levels have difficulties to keep pace. Laws
are now often enacted more quickly than companies and people can adapt. In the long
run, this is likely to cause systemic instability, as time-scale separation is destroyed,
so that many more variables begin to influence the dynamics of the system. Such
attempts to make mutual adjustments on different hierarchical levels could potentially
lead to turbulence, “chaos”, breakdown of synchronization, or fragmentation of the
system. In fact, while it is known that delays in adaptation can destabilize a system, we
are putting many of our problems on the long finger (e.g. public debts, implications
of demographic change, nuclear waste, or climate change). This creates a concrete
danger that our society will eventually lose control and become unstable.
References
1. Y. Sugiyama et al., Traffic jams without bottlenecks? Experimental evidence for the physical
mechanisms of the formation of a jam. New Journal of Physics 10, 033001 (2008), http://iop
science.iop.org/1367-2630/10/3/033001.
2. J. Sterman and John D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World (McGraw-Hill, 2000).
3. D. Helbing and S. Lämmer (2005) Supply and production networks: From the bullwhip effect
to business cycles. Page 33–66 in: D. Armbruster, A. S. Mikhailov, and K. Kaneko (eds.)
Networks of Interacting Machines: Production Organization in Complex Industrial Systems
and Biological Cells (World Scientific, Singapore).
4. J. Nienhaus, A. Ziegenbein and P. Schoensleben, How human behaviour amplifies the bullwhip
effect. A study based on the beer distribution game. Production Planning & Control: The
Management of Operations 17(6), 547–557 (2006).
5. D. Dorner, The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations (Basic
Books, 1997).
6. D. Helbing (2013): Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497, 51–59.
7. Duncan J. Watts, Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us (Crown Business,
2012).
8. J. Wilfling, Unheil: Warum jeder zum Mörder werden kann (Heyne, 2010).
9. M. Perc, K. Donnay and D. Helbing (2013) Understanding recurrent crime as system-immanent
collective behavior. PLOS ONE 8(10), e76063.