Was Kenneth Boulding an Evolutionary Economist,

a Systems Theorist, or Both?

Joseph E. Pluta*

The scholarship of Kenneth Boulding has produced substantial

contributions to several areas of knowledge, many of which are only
peripherally related to the discipline of economics, his presumed academic
specialty. Indeed, being confined to any single discipline was a constraint
Boulding refused to accept at a time when economics often appeared more
interested in turning inward rather than outward. By one account, Boulding
“published more than a thousand items in thirty subject areas” (Solo 1994:
1188). Among his numerous achievements was his helping to establish the
direction that a fledgling interdisciplinary pursuit called systems theory was
to pursue.

Background

Boulding was one of the founders in 1956 of the Society for General
Systems Research, an organization that was renamed the International
Society for Systems Science in 1988. Originally charged with developing
theoretical systems that can be used in more than a single discipline, ISSS
has broadened its focus to include practical applications of systems
techniques to problem solving. Boulding served as first president of the
organization whose later presidents included such notable scholars as
cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead, political scientist Bertram Gross,
chemist Ilya Prigogine, and several other distinguished academics. Boulding
also later served as president of the American Economic Association.
A society devoted to the study of systems was initially conceived in
1954 at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
through the combined efforts of economist Boulding, biologist Ludwig von
Bertalanffy, neuroscientist Ralph Gerard, and mathematician Anatol
Rapoport. With the assistance of biologist James Grier Miller, SGSR was
formally established as an affiliate of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science two years later.
In his classic article on General Systems Theory (GST), Boulding
proposed a social systems gravimeter, which he dubbed the “skeleton of
science”, comprised of nine levels of organization each delineating an
increasing level of complexity (Boulding 1956). He lamented at the time that
theoretical models in GST had yet to advance beyond the fourth level of his

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243
 2

“skeleton” and were fairly rare even above the second level. General
systems theorists, along with scholars in the sister disciplines that the
original movement inspired, have clearly made progress during the past half
century, both in terms of analytical rigor and in the application of their
methods to a wide range of issues. Much of this work, however, still remains
within the third and fourth levels of the Boulding gravimeter. This suggests
that modern GST may have either paid limited attention to the Boulding
framework or that the GST approach still has much to gain by developing
and applying it.
The former conclusion may appear valid on two fronts. First, as has
recently been noted, “Boulding never returned to the Skeleton in his later
writings” (Wilby 2006: 698), the reason for which can only be speculated
upon at this juncture.1 Having done considerable work in systems theory
later in his career, he likely chose to become more involved in new
directions in which this work took him and simply allowed his original
formulation of the concept to stand on its own. Of course, given Boulding’s
extensive scholarly interests, there is a limit to the research avenues that any
scholar can pursue during the course of a highly productive lifetime.
Secondly, citations of Boulding in the work of some modern systems
theorists (Radzicki 2003; Lane 2008; and Richardson 1999) have been
relatively rare.2 In much of the work of these and other writers, Boulding
either is not cited at all or else is mentioned only briefly in passing. Perhaps,
there is still much in Boulding’s early thought that contemporary writers can
utilize. It is the latter argument that will be pursued here.

The Skeleton

Table 1 summarizes Boulding’s skeleton of science as originally

described in his 1956 article with selected updates from later researchers.
Beginning with level one, each consecutive level represents a higher degree
of complexity and a more demanding challenge for interdisciplinary
researchers. While acknowledging that “open systems” thinking had made
dramatic strides at the third and fourth levels during the early 1950s,
Boulding was quick to point out that “(a)dequate theoretical models extend
up to about the fourth level, and not much beyond. Empirical knowledge is
deficient at practically all levels” (Boulding 1956: 205). While empirical
research over the past half century has improved upon the deficiencies
Boulding noted in that area, many present day systems theorists, despite the
advances their interdisciplinary approach has achieved, still concur with his
assessment of the inadequacy of theoretical models. As will be discussed

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243
 3

Table 1
The Boulding Skeleton of Science

Level Description Characteristic Example Discipline_____

1 Structures and Static, Spatial Picture, Statue, Descriptive Elements
Frameworks Pattern Jigsaw Puzzle, of All Disciplines
Atom, Molecule

2 Clockworks Predetermined Clocks, Machines, Physics, Astronomy,

Dynamic Mechanics, Engineering,
Motion Solar System Economics

3 Control Closed-Loop Thermostat, Cybernetics,

Mechanisms Control Homeostasis Physiology

4 Open Systems Structurally Self- Cells, Flames, Theory of Metabolism

Maintaining Rivers

5 Genetic-Societal Society of Cells, Plants Botany

Systems Functional Parts

6 Animals Nervous System, Birds and Beasts Zoology

Self-Awareness,
Mobility

7 Humans Knowledge, Human Beings Biology, Psychology,

Language, Self- Ecology,
Consciousness Neurobiology

8 Socio-Cultural Roles, Values, Families, Clubs, History, Sociology,

Systems Communication Boy Scouts Anthropology,
Psychology,
Economics,
Political Science

9 Transcendental Unanswerable God? Philosophy, Religion

Systems Questions_________________________________________

Sources: Adapted from Boulding 1956: 202-205 and updates from Mingers 1997: 306;
Wilby 2005: 394; and Wilby 2006: 697.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 4

below, their work in designing more sophisticated models continues.

More than a decade ago, a useful effort to reconceptualize the original
hierarchy of the skeleton was undertaken (Mingers 1997). Among several
suggested updates, two of the more significant were the distinction between
living and non-living systems along with more explicit definition of a
systems complexity scale that separates levels in the skeleton.
Mingers’ self-referential systems hierarchy is, among other things, an
effort to move beyond Boulding’s level 4. Self-referential systems involve
human observation and self-consciousness, a step above the level of abstract
interaction between animals that contain nervous systems. Much of the
current GST literature is built around loop diagrams originally mentioned in
Boulding’s level 3. Some of the more sophisticated loop diagram models
may be considered, at least theoretically, as reaching level 7 in the
realignment offered by Mingers. In his conclusion, Mingers proposed greater
reliance on circular systems and building on Boulding’s original hierarchy.
More recently, additional attention has been drawn to the early work
of Boulding by former ISSS president Jennifer Wilby who concludes:

Boulding’s Skeleton does feel intuitively correct. The problem

of increasing complexity in image, message filtering and observer-
dependency at the higher levels of the Skeleton will continue to
frustrate the search for a working, valuable, social-science gravimeter.
It may also explain the lack of specific follow-up work on the
Skeleton by Boulding and other writers in the field of general systems
theory…… Further work on developing a social science gravimeter is
needed in GST (Wilby 2006: 699).

Unfortunately, some of the overviews of where GST has been and

where it is going suggest that relatively few of its researchers are looking to
Boulding for inspiration. Twenty five years ago, for example, in a thorough
survey of obstacles facing GST and proposed solutions, Boulding received
only minor mention (Troncale 1985). When this study was recently updated
(Troncale 2009), Boulding was not mentioned at all. A research proposal for
systems science only includes Boulding in a lengthy list of “twentieth-
century experimenters” (Warfield 2003). A very recent overview of trends in
GST mentions Boulding only as one of the founders of the Society for
General Systems Research but does not cite any of his work (Drack and
Schwarz 2010)3. These surveys suggest that some generalists in the field
who are calling for a reexamination of the direction of research, including a
greater appreciation of the history of GST thought, seldom if ever point in

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 5

the direction of Boulding’s work.

For too many GST researchers today, Boulding merits only a passing
and even a compulsory respectful footnote. In fact, more than one academic
journal article in the field of GST exists where a work of Boulding is
included in the list of references but he is not cited at all in the body of the
text. One writer (Waters 2006) has speculated on possible reasons some of
Boulding’s work has been ignored in a number of different disciplines. He is
also critical of a recent post-Keynesian analysis (Khalil 1996) for its
assessment of Boulding. Khalil argued that Boulding’s work was based more
on principles rooted in ecology (ecodynamics) rather than in evolutionary
economics. Waters finds the Khalil critique of Boulding to be narrow and
unappreciative of Boulding’s concept of knowledge. In terms of the
argument presented here, Khalil does not mention the skeleton and says little
in his critique that directly addresses the adequacy of Boulding’s systems
thinking.

Some Promising Research

And yet, some contemporary researchers do recognize the value of

studying the history of GST, including the contributions of Boulding. In
addition to the work of Mingers and Wilby mentioned above, one writer
(Martinelli 2001) has recently proposed an application of Boulding’s
hierarchy to corporate managerial systems. Another (Georgiou 2010) has
discussed Boulding’s mathematics of information theory and his concept of
human knowledge in a recent historically oriented article. Yet another
(Jackson 2009) has demonstrated the importance of Boulding’s hierarchy in
the development of the theory and practice of operations research. A fourth
study (Weaver 2002) has used the Boulding hierarchy to describe the
production of artificially intelligent control programs in heating and cooling
mechanisms. Some GST researchers, therefore, are aware that Boulding was
there “back when it all began” and have genuinely built upon his early work.
Three of the more innovative adaptations of the original Boulding
skeleton illustrate its potentially broad reach. In a highly creative yet
analytically solid approach, one study (Sridhar and Camburn 1993) applies
Boulding’s hierarchy to the study of ethical behavior within giant
corporations. In an important link with physical science, especially biology,
a second work by Wilby applies Boulding’s hierarchy to the study of
emerging infectious diseases and argues that it can be used to improve the
process of policy decisions in the area of public health (Wilby 2005). An
approach with geographically broad implications (Ryan and Mothibi 2000)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 6

applies some of Boulding’s later (mid 1960s) systems thinking to science

and technology policy formulation problems in developing countries.
All of this work should eventually inspire further research that builds
on the skeleton. In the interest of pointing the way toward possible future
research ventures, some of the specific methodologies and research findings
of the above work are worthy of closer examination.
For example, beginning with Boulding’s skeleton, Martinelli
compared characteristics of 18 separate hierarchies. Based on usefulness to
corporate management, he drew upon the most relevant elements contained
therein and constructed a new hierarchy combining portions of Boulding’s
first seven levels (up to the human level) (Martinelli 2001: 72). He further
suggested ways his hierarchy could be enriched to accommodate specific
corporate needs.
Wilby constructs a matrix to show that nearly every level of
Boulding’s skeleton can be used to categorize complex risk factors in
emerging infectious diseases (Wilby 2005: 390). She argues that, even when
single risk factors can be isolated, they must be studied using a
multidisciplinary approach. By identifying relevant disciplines in each case,
she is able to list those disciplines that were overlooked in a 1998 strategy
document that assessed the threat and prevention of the spread of infectious
diseases. The document was published by the U. S. Center for Disease
Control. In the Wilby study, the Boulding hierarchy is the centerpiece of the
holistic analysis of CDC policy goals with some disciplines being used at
levels 7 and 8. As a result, it is possible to look beyond the scientific aspects
of infectious diseases and include social, political, and human interest
factors.
In their study of corporate ethics or the lack thereof, Sridhar and
Camburn accept largely as is the first four levels of Boulding’s hierarchy.
They proceed to argue that much research on organizations, including the
corporate structure, has been undertaken using the open systems approach of
Boulding’s level 4. They state further, however, that this level is inadequate
for studying complex interactions among members of corporate
organizations including top level management response to crises where
ethical judgment is required.
After expanding the focus of levels 5 through 9 in the Boulding
skeleton and redefining some terms, Sridhar and Camburn perform standard
statistical tests on student perceptions of corporate response in five case
studies: Arthur D. Little and toxic waste disposal, Burroughs Wellcome and
the anti-AIDS drug called AZT, Drexel Burnham-Lambert and insider
trading, the Lincoln Savings and Loan financial scandal, and the Miami

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 7

Herald coverage of the extramarital affair involving U. S. Senator Gary Hart.

Each of these crises called into question organizational action or inaction.
Sridhar and Camburn conclude that the revised version of the
Boulding hierarchy that they offer is better suited to the study of corporate
ethics than previous attempts by organizational theorists, most of whom
confine their analyses to the open systems approach of Boulding’s level 4.
Corporations in the Sridhar and Camburn study were viewed as more
organic and more social entities where a more human like set of qualities are
marshaled in response to ethically dubious behavior.

The Rigor vs. Synthesis Issue

GST has become more sophisticated in its techniques but also more
fragmented. While the former is clearly a natural and generally desirable
development, the latter has produced several branches of research teams not
always cognizant of, or even interested in, what others are doing. Each
branch, meanwhile, has produced a seemingly endless array of new terms
with specific definitions resulting in some controversy over what each of
these terms means, how they can be used, and how important each is to the
analysis in question. It is not unusual, for example, that a new methodology
using a detailed set of newly defined terms is developed only to be ignored
by others working in different branches of the GST tree. At some point,
however, some synthesis of the best of these methodologies appears
necessary while the least useful approaches (say, those with the fewest
applications) are discarded or at least relegated secondary status.
Some of the problems of using the same terminology across
traditional academic disciplines have been identified along with suggestions
for minimizing reluctance to do so (Bailey 2001). Exporting both terms and
concepts often still meets with resistance both in the disciplines of origin and
destination. While Boulding certainly understood the need for overcoming
this obstacle, it was primarily a hurdle he left for others to clear. In addition,
he was so prolific at inventing new terms himself that he may have
unintentionally contributed more to the problem than its solution.
In some ways, modern GST has clearly moved beyond some of the
constraints under which Boulding initially operated. Most notably, despite
his contributions in the area of evolutionary economics (Boulding 1981)
where the concept has always been held in extreme disfavor, Boulding
initially appears to embrace the notion of equilibrium that the economics
profession had “borrowed” from the physical sciences. His 1956 article
explicitly states:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 8

In true dynamics….we exhibit the system as a set of difference or

differential equations, which are then solved in the form of an explicit
function of each variable with time. Such a system may reach a
position of stationary equilibrium, or it may not—there are plenty of
examples of explosive dynamic systems, a very simple one being the
growth of a sum at compound interest! Most physical and chemical
reactions and most social systems do in fact exhibit a tendency to
equilibrium—otherwise the world would have exploded or imploded
long ago (Boulding 1956: 203). (italics added)

Despite his penchant for metaphor, Boulding at that time clearly

endorsed use of the equilibrium concept in systems modeling. Modern GST
theorists have chosen more dynamic methods including complex
diagrammatics originally developed under circular and cumulative causation
(Pluta 2010). Later in life, Boulding himself became less enamored of the
equilibrium concept, certainly as far as its application to systems thinking
was concerned but also as a generally effective concept (Boulding 1978).
Drawing upon the early work of evolutionary economists (Veblen
1900; Myrdal 1944), researchers employing circular and cumulative
causation are among the pioneers in the use of what present day systems
dynamicists call loop diagrams. Initially, these were developed as an
alternative to equilibrium models which are deficient because they suggest
that changing a single variable moves the system to a new state of rest, that
this new position is somehow benevolent or at least normal, and that change
is one directional with no feedback effects. Loop diagrams allow for
multiple interaction among variables within a system, explicitly recognize
feedback effects, and openly acknowledge that a dynamic system may be
moving either toward beneficial or harmful results. Loop diagrams today are
more sophisticated than those originally used by evolutionary economists
although, once again, systems researchers often either ignore or downplay
the early influence of evolutionary economists.4
One of the current branches of systems thinking is the open systems
approach of Post Keynesian economics (Chick and Dow 2005; Chick 2004;
and Loasby 2003). Recall from Table 1 that structurally self-maintaining
open systems were a major feature of Boulding’s level 4. Other than an
occasional citation, however, few Post-Keynesian authors acknowledge the
influence of Boulding and explicit mention of the skeleton apparently does
not exist in this literature. It should also be pointed out that the open systems
methodology exemplifies only level 4 of the skeleton while researchers in

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 9

other branches of GST have laid claim to at least experimental work in

levels 7 and 8.
Like others in the fragmented world of systems thinking, the Post
Keynesians are engaged in a lively methodological debate over appropriate
use of terms and the direction of their research. Compared to other systems
theorists, the Post Keynesians are far more likely to draw on the circular and
cumulative causation approach (Berger and Elsner 2007). More so than
other schools of economic thought, Post Keynesians apply the open systems
framework to key macroeconomic policy choices. Such a focus is especially
useful since government policy (changes in tax rates, expenditure levels and
priorities, regulation, and the money supply) affects both economic and
noneconomic variables. Despite the wide range of issues it has addressed,
Post Keynesian research provides little evidence of a sustained effort at
synthesis with other systems thinkers.
One of the original goals of the systems movement was the unification
of the sciences and the elimination of duplication that might be occurring
simultaneously in different fields. Obviously, not only has this not happened
but the road toward this achievement may also be getting longer. The fact
that GST and its companion disciplines are still engaged in defining
concepts and terms suggests how close to relative infancy this movement
still resides.
In their rush to develop new methods, greater rigor, and wider
applications, younger GST researchers have not always shown an
appreciation for the historical origins of the movement. At the risk of
overgeneralization, it might be mentioned that this is a characteristic shared
by young scholars in many fields, most assuredly in economics and in a
number of the physical sciences. In an effort to teach the latest analytical
techniques, graduate programs are seldom guilty of overemphasizing the
history of their disciplines.
The level of rigor found in much published GST research is indeed
impressive and clearly has risen over the past three or four decades. This is
especially evident in such journals as the International Journal of General
Systems, Cybernetics and Systems, the International Journal of Systems
Science, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Systemic Practice and
Action Research, and several others. The mathematical and technical
sophistication displayed in models presented in these sources rivals that of
most academic disciplines, certainly in the social sciences. Boulding himself
no doubt would have appreciated and respected much of this work. He also,
however, would have likely expressed concern that the level of analysis
might be reducing rather than enhancing cross-disciplinary communication,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 10

which after all was a primary motivation behind the systems movement at its
inception.
Rigor and synthesis, of course, need not be contradictory goals. Both
can be achieved simultaneously but the process of doing so depends on the
level of communication among leading researchers. Disciplinary boundaries
must be broken down carefully with conferences and continued published
research the most likely vehicles. It would be difficult, and probably
presumptuous, for someone like myself who was not formally trained in
systems theory to offer any more in the way of recommendations. Leading
researchers in GST are far more capable of leading the way. I would,
however, like to offer one illustrative anecdote.
On three separate occasions, I did enjoy the distinct privilege of
having lengthy one-on-one conversations with Kenneth Boulding in such
disparate locations as Monterey, California; Georgetown, Texas; and
Toronto, Canada. Each time, no matter what was being discussed, he
inevitably returned to the importance of close communication among
scholars in diverse disciplines. The story I remember best was his
description of the economist who was building an elaborate econometric
model encompassing dozens of quantifiable variables. At the conclusion of
his research, the economist in the story stated proudly, almost arrogantly,
that what remained to be done could be found in the discipline of political
science if only someone there would expand upon his model.
With his characteristic warm smile, Boulding looked at me and stated:
“But alas, the other chap wasn’t there because he was busy building his own
model that left out economic variables.” No doubt he related similar stories
to others and may have even published a version in one of his works of
which I am not familiar. At the other extreme, as Boulding himself stated in
1956: “It is all too easy for the interdisciplinary to degenerate into the
undisciplined” (Boulding 1956: 200). With slow but deliberate progress and,
hopefully, with the advice of a wise sage like Boulding near at hand, systems
thinking continues to work on avoiding both pitfalls.

Some Possible Refinements to the Skeleton?

With the proliferation of data generation and collection in both the

physical and social sciences, it is not unreasonable to expect that greater
empirical knowledge within levels 7 and 8 of the skeleton will soon be
forthcoming. The traditional disciplines listed in Table 1 as representing
levels 5 through 8 of the skeleton have clearly produced statistics not even
imagined at the time the skeleton was initially conceived. Some of the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 11

methods developed in these areas clearly call for data to be subjected to

testing.
It may be valuable at this point to reconsider how Boulding himself
described the appropriate domain of his level 8. In his own words

…..it is convenient for some purposes to distinguish the individual

human as a system from the social systems which surround him, and
in this sense social organizations may be said to constitute another
level of organization. The unit of such systems is not perhaps the
person—the individual human as such—but the "role"—that part of
the person which is concerned with the organization or situation in
question, and it is tempting to define social organizations, or almost
any social system, as a set of roles tied together with channels of
communication. (Boulding, 1956: 205)

Here Boulding the evolutionary economist is calling for systems

theorists to study social organizations or humanly created institutions. A
wider range of institutions (and the data they have spawned) than those
listed as examples in Boulding’s level 8 now provide added potential for
those researching socio-cultural systems. Evolutionary economists define
institutions as groupings of people with common behavior patterns (Pluta
2011: 204). Institutions include habits of thought (like custom and tradition),
established social practices (like human behavior and family life), and forms
of organization (like markets, business firms large and small, banks,
governments, and a legal system). Institutions are also considered to be
established forms of ceremonial behavior.
Note the similarities in this definition of institutions to the description
of organizations given by Mingers in his discussions of Boulding’s level 8.

…..Within such systems, regular patterns of behaviour emerge

through the structural coupling between members. These can be
described in terms such as rules, norms and patterns of meaning. Such
social Organizations can be highly diverse and ritualized, but once
established are highly conservative since they generate, in their
members, structural responses that generally conform to the prevailing
relations. (Mingers 1997: 309)

The study of such entities within such traditional disciplines as

economics, sociology, political science, history, anthropology, and
psychology has been extensive over the past half century. No doubt,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 12

considerable duplication of effort has occurred. That fact alone speaks to the
need for greater interdisciplinary effort.
Some steps in that direction have taken place as is evident from such
newly emerging fields as economic psychology, happiness research,
cognitive science, sociobiology, and, to a lesser extent, behavioral
economics. While interesting and clearly departing from the mainstream of
several disciplines, most of these areas have seldom combined research
methods of more than two (occasionally perhaps three) traditional
disciplines. As such, they have fallen short of genuine systems thinking.
Traditional disciplines themselves are institutions. They are often
static in their methods, past binding, resistant to change, authoritative (even
dictatorial), ceremonial, and past-glorifying. They may even slow the speed
with which new technical knowledge is introduced and human progress is
achieved. Mainstream economics has certainly done this with its continued
embrace of such dubious concepts as the invisible hand, consumer
rationality, equilibrium, the marginal productivity theory, the inevitability of
diminishing returns, and the fiction of pure competition.
Boulding and others in the systems thinking movement have taken a
giant step in breaking down these and other traditional resistances to change.
While much clearly remains to be done, the existence of data on many of the
institutions mentioned above provides a potentially fruitful starting point for
systems thinkers interested in exploring some of the higher levels of the
skeleton. This is especially the case when one considers the wealth of data
collected in recent decades on: corporations including banks, small
businesses, educational institutions, unions, religious organizations,
government agencies, and even families. These databases have barely been
tapped by researchers using a systems approach.

Summary and Conclusions

Some contemporary systems theorists have chosen to ignore or at least

downplay the early work of Kenneth Boulding. This group has advanced the
level and scope of systems thinking by building more analytically
sophisticated models and extending the range of issues that the
interdisciplinary approach has addressed. Other contemporary researchers
have made the Boulding Skeleton the centerpiece of their pursuits. Some
have adopted the skeleton largely as is and extended systems thinking above
level 4 in the original hierarchy. Others have kept Boulding’s first four
levels intact while redefining the higher levels in ways that more suitably fit
their particular research agendas.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 13

Boulding constantly stressed communication across traditional

academic disciplines as well as communication among systems thinkers. The
former is still occurring with some regularity (even among groups that are
not part of formal systems thinking) while the latter is often lacking as the
movement has fragmented. Some systems theorists no longer feel
comfortable even using the term GST and prefer monikers or nomenclature
more in line with branches of the field in which they have done their own
work.
Writing more than 20 years after outlining the rudiments of the
skeleton, Boulding in his Ecodynamics presented a series of arguments for
synthesis. Commenting on the book at the time of Boulding’s death, one
reviewer (Henderson 1995: 274) described this work “as the search for the
all-by-all matrix”. To make certain that General Systems thinking does not
move further from a full synthesis of disciplinary approaches today than it
was in Boulding’s day, the movement would do well to not lose sight of
what originally motivated that “search”.

*Professor of Economics, St. Edward’s University, Austin, Texas.

Endnotes:

1. He does, however, speak of hierarchies in various systems (Boulding

1978). He also writes at length about many different aspects of his general
systems theory in his later work (Boulding 1985 and Boulding 1989).

2. The articles cited here are representative of some of the major

contributions of these authors. All three have published a considerable
amount in this field elsewhere. None of this work, however, draws
substantially on the work of Boulding.

3. In all fairness, this article focuses primarily on the work of Ludwig von
Bertalanffy, another pioneer in the field. It also calls for contemporary
scholars to pay more attention to the historical roots of the movement. The
fact remains, however, that in this survey Boulding is virtually ignored.

4. For an excellent collection of articles on the historical roots as well as the

applications of circular and cumulative causation, see Berger 2009.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 14

Bibliography

Bailey, K. D. (2001) ‘Towards Unifying Science: Applying Concepts Across

Disciplinary Boundaries’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
18: 41-62.

Berger , S. (ed.) (2009) The Foundations of Non-Equilibrium Economics:

The Principle of Circular and Cumulative Causation, London:
Routledge.

______ and Elsner, W. (2007) ‘European Contributions to Evolutionary

Institutional Economics: The Cases of Cumulative Circular Causation
(CCC) and Open System Approach (OSA)---Some Methodological
and Policy Implications’, Journal of Economic Issues, 41: 529-537.

Boulding, K. E. (1956) ‘General Systems Theory: The Skeleton of Science’,

Management Science, 2: 197-208.

______ (1978) Ecodymanics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution, Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

______ (1981) Evolutionary Economics, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

______ (1985) The World as a Total System, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

______ (1989) Three Faces of Power, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chick, V. (2004) ‘On Open Systems’, Brazilian Review of Political

Economy 24: 1–16.

______ and Dow, S. (2005) ‘The Meaning of Open Systems’, Journal of

Economic Methodology, 12: 363-381.

Drack, M. and Schwarz, G. (2010) ‘Recent Developments in General

System Theory’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27: 601-
610.

Georgiou, I. (2010) ‘Seven and the Sausage Machine: Searching for

Conclusions in Miller’s 1956 Magical Paper’, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 27: 611-621.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 15

Henderson, H. (1995) ‘An Appreciation of Kenneth Boulding’, Systems

Research, 12: 273-279.

Jackson, M. C. (2009) ‘Fifty Years of Systems Thinking for Management’,

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60: 24-32.

Khalil, E. L. (1996) ‘Kenneth Boulding: Ecodynamicist or Evolutionary

Economist?’ Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 19: 83-100.

Lane, D. C. (2008) ‘The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System

Dynamics: A Critical Account’, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 25: 3-23.

Loasby, B. J. (2003) ‘Closed Models and Open Systems’, Journal of

Economic Methodology, 10: 285‐306.

Martinelli, D. P. (2001) ‘Systems Hierarchies and Management’, Systems

Research and Behavioral Science, 18: 69-82.

Mingers, J. (1997) ‘Systems Topologies in the Light of Autopoiesis: A

Reconceptualization of Boulding’s Hierarchy and a Typology of Self-
Referential Systems’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14:
303–314.

Myrdal, G. (1944) An American Dilemma, New York: Harper and Brothers.

Pluta, J. E. (2011) Human Progress Amid Resistance to Change, Victoria,

British Columbia: Freisen Press.

______ (2010) ‘Evolutionary Alternatives to Equilibrium Economics:

Some Suggested Applications’, American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 69: 1155-1177.

Radzicki, M. J. (2003) ‘Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester, and a Foundation for

Evolutionary Economics’, Journal of Economic Issues, 37: 133-173.

Richardson, G. P. (1999) ‘Reflections for the Future of System Dynamics’,

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50: 440-449.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 16

Ryan, T. B. and Mothibi, J. (2000) ‘Towards a Systemic Framework for

Understanding Science and Technology Policy Formulation Problems
for Developing Countries’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
17: 375-381.

Solo, R. A. (1994) ‘Kenneth Ewart Boulding: 1910-1993. An Appreciation’,

Journal of Economic Issues, 28: 1187-1200.

Sridhar, B. S. and Camburn, A. (1993) ‘Stages of Moral Development of

Corporations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 12: 727-739.

Troncale, L. R. (1985) ‘The Future of General Systems Research: Obstacles,

Potentials, Case Studies’, Systems Research, 2: 1-42.

______ (2009) ‘Revisited: The Future of General Systems Research: Update

on Obstacles, Potentials, Case Studies’, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 26: 553-561.

Veblen, T. B. (1900) ‘The Preconceptions of Economic Science’, Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 14: 240-269.

Warfield, J. N. (2003) ‘A Proposal for Systems Science’, Systems Research

and Behavioral Science, 20: 507-520.

Waters, R. (2006) ‘What Happened to Boulding’s Evolutionary

Economics?’ Journal of Economic Issues, 40: 465–471.

Weaver, B. (2002) ‘Cutting the Apron Strings: Emerging Intelligent Process

Control Systems’, Scientific Computing and Instrumentation, 19: 18,
46.

Wilby, J. M. (2005) ‘Combining a Systems Framework with Epidemiology

in the Study of Emerging Infectious Disease’, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 22: 385-398.

______ (2006) ‘An Essay on Kenneth E. Boulding’s General Systems

Theory: The Skeleton of Science’, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 23, 695-699.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243

 17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845243