arXiv:1102.4528v3 [] 17 Mar 2011

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

MODELLING THE DYNAMICS OF THE WORK-EMPLOYMENT
SYSTEM BY PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS

N. S. COSTA SERPA
UNIP - Universidade Paulista, Instituto de Ciências Exatas e Tecnologia
SGAS Quadra 913, s/no - Conjunto B - Asa Sul - Brası́lia - DF, Brasil, CEP 70390-130
nilo.serpa@mte.gov.br, nilo@techsolarium.com
J. R. STEINER
UnB - Universidade de Brası́lia, Instituto de Fı́sica
CP 04455, Brası́lia - DF, Brasil, CEP 70919-970
jrsteiner78@gmail.com

The broad application range of the predator-prey modelling enabled us to apply it to
represent the dynamics of the work-employment system. For the adopted period, we
conclude that this dynamics is chaotic in the beginning of the time series and tends to
less perturbed states, as time goes by, due to public policies and hidden intrinsic system
features. Basic Lotka-Volterra approach was revised and adapted to the reality of the
study. The final aim is to provide managers with generalized theoretical elements that
allow to a more accurate understanding of the behavior of the work-employment system.
Keywords: predator-prey model; chaotic dynamics; work-employment system; perturbed
states; evolution.

”Economies possess general ecosystem properties, such as dynamism, evolution, integrity,
stability and resilience. Economies are inextricably embedded in larger natural ecosystems, and
exchange flows of materials and energy with natural systems”.

S. Farber & D. Bradley

1. Introduction
The concept of equilibrium in the predator-prey population dynamics has its origins in the works of Lotka 1 and Volterra 2 , making the base of several theoretical
models of interaction among species, with applications in the context of ecological
systems and wildlife management (Caughley and Sinclair, 1994 13 ; Earn et al., 2000
14 ; Blasius et al., 1999 3 ), including fluctuating environments (Collie and Spencer,
1997 15 ). Particularly, Blasius et al. were very benefited by previous works on phase
1

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

2

Econophysics

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

synchronization phenomena in coupled chaotic systems (Rosenblum et al., 1996 7 ).
Also, there are generalized approaches of the Lotka-Volterra model (Tu and Wilman,
1992 16 ). There is special interest on the problem of the growth of two populations
conflicting with one another, known as ”the problem of Volterra” 8 . The generality
of type predator-prey models becomes possible to abstract them from their early
ecological roots, and, by analogy, to apply them on a large range of mathematical
modelling problems. Recently it befell to us to investigate the work-employment
dynamics in Brazil by the implementation of a type predator-prey model. It is not
the case of a classical application of the standard Lotka-Volterra competition modelling, since the variables storage dissimilarities among population registers, not the
populations themselves; this is so because the existing cyclic pattern which entangles the work-employment evolution is much more easily discerned by dissimilar
modelling. Besides, while is tempting to discard the standard Lotka-Volterra model
as too simplistic, there is a real situation where the detailed and complex dissimilar
modelling holds undeniable utility. The aim of this article is to show that the workemployment system in Brazil admits a predator-prey modelling. The model started
from a simple correlation suggested by the superposition of two time series, one to
the number of employed workers, and other to the number of active employers. The
entanglement of the two series is analyzed with the aid of the clustering methodology. In the present article, the abstract analogy with a natural ecosystem is the
work market; the employer or corporation plays the rule of the predator; the prey
is represented by the worker. The assumption of employers as predators has many
reasons:
• The number of employers is much smaller than the number of workers (as
in linx-hare, lion-zebra, crocodile-gnu and cheetah-baboon predator-prey
relationships).
• The employers handle the number of workers depending on the profit margins which they want, heavily controlling the levels of unemployment.
• Employers often fail to collect the so-called ”Guarantee Fund for Time
in Service” related to their workers, causing irregularities that hinder the
realization of labor rights in the event of contract termination agreement.
Moreover, even without a contract being rescinded, the nonpayment of the
Guarantee Fund blocks the employee to request it to buy a home.
• Employers often fail to inform the CAGED (Cadastro Geral de Empregados
e Desempregados)a on the movement of their staff, resulting in bureaucratic
disarray that blocks the access to some labor rights in the event of loss of
working papers; furthermore, the fail to inform the CAGED affects the
labor statistics.
• Many employers absorb the workforce without formal contracts, depriving
workers of their entitlements.
a CAGED

is a great database updated monthly and containing all workers and employers in Brazil.

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

3

• However the scenario is changing in Brazil, many employers still do not
make investments in quality, training employees and providing opportunities for better wages by productivity and capacity. The result is a high turnover, low wages and a working class that never achieves a status of participation on the employer’s profits. In sum, we have a highly non-egalitarian
society which does not prioritize education and manpower quality. Socially
speaking, the predator is who foment social discrepancies and, in present
case, they are employers (public or private). That is the point here.

From this point of view, we have not a model based on political preferences, as some
watchers would think, but based on hard facts. There is no influence of maniqueist
ideas, but simply findings. Paraphrasing Lawson, the offer of labor posts depends
on the investment decisions of capitalists (employers), and the investment decisions
of capitalists depend on the existing offer of manpower 10 . Thus, since employers
impose financial directions on the work market, often indifferent to the zeal for
the rights of the working class, thus creating distortions and fueling widespread
dissatisfaction, it is reasonable to consider the adopted viewpoint in constructing
the model. Obviously, in a more egalitarian society, firmly established on ethics and
education, economically viable and with eyes in the future, it would be required
a comprehensive review of the basic premises assumed. Also, in face of the facts
itemized above, employers appear in many situations to dampen fluctuations in
employee populations.

2. Observational premises
The data sources were the CAGED, and the RAIS (Relação Anual de Informações
Sociais), two of the more important corporative databases of the Brazilian Ministry of Work and Employment. First of all we looked for harmonic patterns in the
behavior of the working class and active employers. Figure 1 clearly presents the
referred pattern in the chosen period (1996-2008). We defined active employer or
company as one that presents variation in the number of admitted workers from
a certain month to another. Secondly, we verify the presence of lags between the
harmonic patterns of both series. This feature is also clearly visible in figure 1, with
relaxation of the system all along the last fifty months. Table 1 shows a segment of
the CAGED for the first year of the time series considered in present study

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

workers
employers

0

50

time(months)

100

150

3 e+05

2.4 e+07

2.6 e+07

4 e+05

2.8 e+07

3.0 e+07

workers

employers

5 e+05

3.2 e+07

3.4 e+07

6 e+05

3.6 e+07

4

Econophysics

Figure 1: harmonic patterns from workers (full line) and active employers (dashed line).
The phase difference is clear in most of the peaks and valleys, especially in the fifty more
recent months.

Table 1: aggregate data
Period Balance workers
01/1996
-12.626
02/1996
-4.094
03/1996
10.003
04/1996
118.918
05/1996
172.930
06/1996
115.028
07/1996
68.920
08/1996
46.937
09/1996
88.964
10/1996
19.466
11/1996
-15.899
12/1996
-258.516

of the CAGED database.
Workers Active employers
23.743.110
336.946
23.739.016
334.349
23.749.019
359.248
23.867.937
349.273
24.040.867
344.896
24.155.895
326.832
24.224.815
338.098
24.271.752
339.688
24.360.716
327.525
24.380.182
329.672
24.364.283
308.009
24.105.767
298.644

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

Active employers

Workers

5

Balance workers

Figure 1-a: the relationship of workers, active employers and balance of workers.

The original Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model makes several simplifying assumptions; it was adapted in many ways, as we may see in the vast literature on predatorprey interactions from which the authors selected some of the more important publications (see references). In many cases the former assumptions are relaxed or
rearranged to fit some particular dynamics. There is no doubt that the predatorprey model adapts, at least conceptually, the work-employment scenario, as it is
very reasonable to admit that employers and workers are, after all, two populations
conflicting with one another. Since the formulations of Karl Marx - with the analysis of the conflicts between worker and employer, and of the entailments of such
conflicts with structural elements formed by the connections among politic, social
and economic plains - we understand that conflicts belong to the dialectic nature of
the capitalist work relations. Also Richard Goodwin, in a different approach, found
in Marx arguments conceptual similarities that lead to his predator-prey dynamic
model 11 .

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

6

Econophysics

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

3. Methods and simulations
3.1. Formal representation
The pertinent information such a model can render is whether or not population
abundances tend to an equilibrium at which both, workers and employers, will coexist and survive with few conflicts. The adopted model was based on the approach of
Blasius and Stone 3 about oscillations with Uniform Phase Evolution and Chaotic
Amplitudes (UPCA). An ecological UPCA model was chosen because it is suitable
for treatment of two correlated periodic phenomena with chaotic amplitude varying
in time, however, almost constant amplitude-independent frequencies as hinted in
Figure 1. We applied the model to investigate the complex temporal phase synchronization in work-employment system at Brazil. In other words, our approach was
based on the theory of synchronization of chaotic oscillations, defined in the most
general case 7 as the entanglement between the phases of two coupled systems,
while the amplitudes stay over chaotic regime in time. The real entanglement of
phases in predator-prey relationships is much more complex than one could suppose at first. As pointed out by Holling, predator-prey interactions have shown that,
in some cases of population densities, predators may control the number of preys,
but this is not true to all density cases 4 . However in Figure 1 populations grow
and fluctuate in a net periodic way, the tests on the tangle between these populations goes far beyond the simplicity of that plot, as the reader can see in Figure
1-a. The balance of workers is a finite difference that indicates whether the workemployment scenario is favorable or not to the employee, and to what degree; it
reflects the potential of the Mean (work market) to sustain the system evolving, by
analogy with the available natural resources in an ecological niche. In other words,
if the balance is negative we believe that there is a retraction of work market to support occupied posts and, virtually, active employers. It is a variable that provides
additional qualitative (positive or negative sign) information. Figure 1-a shows the
active employers-workers-balance of workers relationship, illustrating the potential
oscillations in these populations. The Lotka-Volterra-Serpa differential equations
consider a state vector formed by the product between a geometric tracing vector
and a dissimilarity vector of observables. We use pairwise dissimilarities between
registers instead of the quantities directly stored in data base just to compute the
relative differences which are really cyclic all along the time series. That is the basic
difference from the classical Lotka-Volterra approach and the name was given by
fellow researchers in honor of the author, Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa. The dissimilarity
matrix was made from the monthly populations of active employers and workers,
and from the monthly balance of workers. This matrix computes all the pairwise dissimilarities (or ”distances”) between observations in the CAGED data set by means
of the DAISY algorithm 12 , that executes mixed measurements. We assume that
the pairwise differences computed from the time registers determine the dynamical
configuration of the system. Thereby, our model has three differential equations, one
for the dissimilarity of balance of workers u (resources), one for the dissimilarity of

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

4
0

2

workers/employers

6

8

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time
Figure 2: UPCA oscillations of employer (grey) and worker (black) dissimilarities with initial time-delayed growth (α2 = 1.0).

workers v (preys) and one for the dissimilarity of active employers w (predators),
such as

u̇ = a.u.uo − α1 .f1 (u.uo , v.vo , k1 )



v̇ = − b.v.vo + α1 .f1 (u.uo , v.vo , k1 )−
(1)

−α2 .f2 (v.vo , w.wo , k2 )


ẇ= − c.(w.wo − w† ) + α2 .f2 (v.vo , w.wo , k2 ),

where f1 and f2 represent either the Lotka-Volterra term fi (x, y) = xy or the
Holling type II term fi (x, y) = xy/(1 + ki x), and w† denotes the minimum level of
existent employers dissimilarity when there is scarcity of workpower or doldrums.
The overdot indicates differentiation with respect to time. The quantities a, b and
c are growth rates of balance of workers, workers, and employers respectively. The
Holling type II functional response 4 introduces a decelerating intake rate related to
the assumption that the dissimilarities of active employers is limited by its capacity

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

3
2
0

1

workers/employers

4

5

8

Econophysics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time
Figure 3: UPCA oscillations of employer (grey) and worker (black) dissimilarities with initial time-delayed growth (α2 = 1.4).

to regulate dissimilarities of workers. Comparing to the original equations applied
by Blasius,

 u̇ = a.u − α1 .f1 (u, v, k1 )
v̇ = − b.v + α1 .f1 (u, v, k1 ) − α2 .f2 (v, w, k2 )

ẇ= − c.(w − w† ) + α2 .f2 (v, w, k2 ),

the reader can see that we merge variables u, v, z with u0 , v0 , z0 and this changes
the final geometric form of the system integration according to de observed data.
Figure 5-b shows an example of UPCA oscillations for the last system. In our
model, the positive constant k2 measure the carrying capacity of employers to absorb
manpower; the positive constant k1 measure the carrying capacity of the work
market to accept new workers. As pointed out by Kenneth Arrow and colleagues 6 ,

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

3
2
0

1

workers/employers

4

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time
Figure 4: UPCA oscillations of employer (grey) and worker (black) dissimilarities with initial time-delayed growth (α2 = 1.8).

”Carrying capacities in nature are not fixed, static, or simple relations. They are
contingent on technology, preferences, and the structure of production and consumption. They are also contingent on the everchanging state of interactions between
the physical and biotic environment. A single number for human carrying capacity would be meaningless because the consequences of both human innovation and
biological evolution are inherently unknowable”.
So, it is interesting to investigate what would happen for work-employment scenarios with very low carrying capacity of employers to create new posts. For instance, if
we take k2 = 0 we means that the employers are saturated or temporarily disabled
to open new posts, although k1 remains greater than zero, that is, the work market
remains in flux, but mainly due to high turn over. The contents of the differential

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

3
2
0

1

workers/employers

4

10

Econophysics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time
Figure 5: UPCA oscillations of employer (grey) and worker (black) dissimilarities with initial time-delayed growth (α2 = 2.0).

variables were defined by means of the vectors,
V (u < −ω[1], v < −ω[2], w < −ω[3]) ,
U (uo < −Π[δ, 1], vo < −Π[δ, 2], wo < −Π[δ, 3]) ,

(2)

being ω[j] ( j in [1, 2, 3]) the geometric components describing the state trajectories
and Π[δ, 2j] the j dissimilarity components between observations with δ registers
calculated according to the definition of Euclidian distance, that is,

Π[δ, j] ∝

d
X

κ=1

|xδκ − xjκ |

r

!1/r

,

(3)

where d is the phase space dimensionality; xδκ and xjκ are, respectively, the κ − th
components of the δ − th and j − th registers.

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

3
2
0

1

workers/employers

4

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time
Figure 5-a: UPCA oscillations of employer (grey) and worker (black) dissimilarities with
initial time-delayed growth and k2 = 0.00008 (α2 = 1.8).

3.2. The equilibrium condition
No changes with respect to time in populations and resources, or in their dissimilarities, are represented by setting the equations equal to zero. So, the equilibrium
condition for the system (1) requires,


 a.u.uo − α1 .f1 (u.uo , v.vo , k1 ) = 0

−b.v.vo + α1 .f1 (u.uo , v.vo , k1 )−
(4)

−α
2 .f2 (v.vo , w.wo , k2 ) = 0


−c.(w.wo − w† ) + α2 .f2 (v.vo , w.wo , k2 ) = 0

Introducing the term of Lotka-Volterra (the simplest one), the equilibrium - where
the dissimilarities of active employers, resources and workers do not vary - leads to,

 a.u.uo − α1 .uo .vo .u.v = 0
−b.v.vo + α1 .uo .vo .u.v − α2 .vo .wo .v.w = 0
(5)

−c.(w.wo − w† ) + α2 .vo .wo .v.w = 0

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

12

Econophysics

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

Figure 5-a: simple UPCA oscillations by Blasius et al. for variables u and v.

From the first equation we obtain, whereas population dissimilarity shall be never
equal to zero,
u.(a.uo − α1 .uo .vo .v) = 0,

(6)

a.uo − α1 .uo .vo .v = 0,

(7)

a
a.uo
=
.
α1 .uo .vo
α1 .vo

(8)

v=
Taking the third equation we get,

w=

− c.w.wo + c.w† + α2 .vo .wo .v.w = 0,

(9)

w (−c.wo + α2 .vo .wo .v) = −c.w† ,

(10)

−c.w†
c.w†
=
.
− (c.wo − α2 .vo .wo .v)
c.wo − α2 .vo .wo .v

(11)

Finally, taking the second equation it follows,
α1 .uo .vo .u.v=α2 .vo .wo .v.w + b.v.vo ,
u=

(12)

α2 .vo .wo .v.w + b.v.vo
,
α1 .uo .vo .v

(13)

α2 .wo .w + b
.
α1 .uo

(14)

u=

Substituting the value of w given by equality (11), it comes,


1
c.w†
,
+b
u = α2 .wo .
c.wo − α2 .vo .wo .v
α1 .uo

(15)

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

13

u=




1
α2 .c.w†
,
+b
c − α2 .vo .v
α1 .uo

(16)

u=

α2 .c.w† + b. (c − α2 .vo .v)
.
α1 .uo . (c − α2 .vo .v)

(17)

Now, applying the result set by expression (8), we have,


α1 .c − α2 .a
1
†
u = α2 .c.w + b.
,
α1
uo . (α1 .c − α2 .a)
u=

α1 .α2 .c.w† + b. (α1 .c − α2 .a)
.
α1 .uo . (α1 .c − α2 .a)

(18)

(19)

For the term of Holling type II, that is,
f1 = u.u0 .v.v0 / (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) ,
f2 = v.v0 .w.w0 / (1 + k2 .v.v0 ) ,
the equilibrium sets,

a.u.uo − α1 .u.u0 .v.v0 / (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) = 0



−b.v.vo + α1 .u.u0 .v.v0 / (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) −

−α
2 .v.v0 .w.w0 / (1 + k2 .v.v0 ) = 0


−c.(w.wo − w† ) + α2 .v.v0 .w.w0 / (1 +k2 .v.v0 ) = 0

(20)

(21)

The system becomes much more complex. Nevertheless, we fix k2 = 0, meaning
that the employers are temporarily disabled to open new posts, which determines
the solution as it follows. The second equation leads to,
w=

α1 .u.u0 / (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) − b
.
α2 .w0

(22)

The first equation gives,
a = α1 .v.v0 / (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) ,

(23)

a. (1 + k1 .u.u0 ) = α1 .v.v0 ,

(24)

1 + k1 .u.u0 =
u=

α1 .v.v0
,
a

α1 .v.v0 − a
.
u0 .a.k1

(25)
(26)

Finally, the third equation sets v as,
α2 .v.v0 .w.w0 / 1 +k2 .v.v0 ) = c.(w.wo − w† ),
v=

c.(w.wo − w† )
.
α2 .v0 .w.w0

(27)
(28)

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

14

8

12

workers

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

10

14

Econophysics

6
4

6
4

2

companies

10
8

2
0

0
0

50

100

150

200

time

12
10

workers

6

14

4

companies

8

10

Figure 6: the system in three-dimensional phase space.

2

8
6
4
2

0

0
0

50

100

150

200

time

Figure 7: another vision of the same system.

4. Discussion
Insecurity generated by the employers and the work market, over many years of
restructuring and adjustment to globalization as the Nineties, led to an exacerbation of individualism. Competition became more dominant than cooperation. Fear
and instability certainly promoted higher levels of depression, while millions of peo-

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

6
4
0

2

companies

8

10

15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

workers

Figure 8: workers and employers in phase space with an attracting central curve.

ple reached the productive age, pressing more and more the formal work market.
Moreover, due to the neo-liberal offensive (1980-1990) to the resumption of the
”Theory of Human Capital”, backed by Gary Becker, the wage differences came to
be seen as responsibility of the worker himself, who thus became the chief culprit
for all economic ills. The spreading of innovations due to technological changes (the
convergence of information technology and telecommunications and the continuing
cost reductions) greatly affected the rate of hiring as a function of the resizing of
the human effectives face to an accelerated automation. Also, Security in all the
countries that care about their retirees do not support the significant increase in
life expectancy, discouraging retirements and thus retaining jobs occupied for much
longer. All these factors contributed to a more chaotic work-employment scenario
in Brazil from mid-1990 until about 2002 and they corroborate the interpretation of
the plots. Many simulations are performed with vector V describing the geometry
of the dynamics (theoretical), intrinsic to the nature of the system itself, and vector
U storaging the measurable content (observational) of the dynamics. For the more
realistic Holling type II functional response, with k2 = 0, figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show
graphics of the general propensity of the system to less chaotic states accordingly
the values 1.0, 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0 of the population interaction parameter α2 . Figure
5-a shows similar patterns for k2 = 0.00008. Note that in all these figures there is
a transition state to the phase of greater relaxation of the system. The great phase
transition occurs close to the middle of the time series, from which the system goes
on a relaxation stage. Comparing figures 1 and 5, the best fit realy seems to be
for α2 = 2.0 with phase transition around the zone between 50 and 100 months in
figure 1. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the system’s phase space for α2 = 1.0. The exact

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

16

Econophysics

Nilo Sylvio Costa Serpa

fitting of this parameter is a matter of more studies, since predator-prey stability
could come from many factors at play, such as migration of manpower, employers
self-limiting their staffs, seasonal recruitment due to foreseen peaks of sales, and so
on, in the same way as pointed out by Andrzej Pekalski 5 in biological systems.
5. Conclusion
This study identified a predator-prey pattern in the work-employment system. The
central equations applied are modified versions of those studied by Blasius et al,
introducing pairwise dissimilarities between observations as a way to identify cyclic
behaviors in the system. For carrying capacity k2 = 0, simulations showed trajectories with initial chaotic behavior and tendency to final states of greater equilibrium,
which means that, even with zero carrying capacity of employers, the dynamics of
the work-employment system in Brazil has demonstrated, during the past 12-15
years, propensity to adjusting to less chaotic regimes. In part, this is due to the
great migration in recent years to solidary economy and autonomous work. Present
article analyzed the system dynamics under the interpretation of the population
interaction parameter α2 as an index of the convergence between the aims of employers and workers or as an index of the equilibrium created by lower demand for
formal employment. Of course, interactions and proliferation of workers and employers are not easily controlled, but the captivation of manpower is a variable that
may be monitored and partially governed by public policies. Moreover, as Grafton
and Echenique 9 pointed out, we have the problem to choose the more appropriate
ecological model to describe the situation in study. In our opinion, as more is learned
about the system, we must change adaptively the model in order to lower uncertainty. Far from exhausting the subject, it is clear that in its general form the model
represents reasonably well the dynamics of predator-prey for the work-employment
system in Brazil. We hope this work will serve as inspiration for further studies in
order to compare the application of the model in different countries.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Dr. Sergio Alves Cotia for their comments on the
manuscript and for his integral support to this work.

♦♦♦
References
1. Lotka, A. 1925, Elements of Physical Biology, Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins.
2. Volterra, V. 1931, Leçons sur la Thorie Mathmatiques de la Lutte pour la Vie, Paris.

March 21, 2011 1:22 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE

Econophysics

17

3. Blasius, B. and Stone, L. 1999, Chaotic Waves and Phase Synchronization in spatially
extended ecological systems in D. S. Broomhead, E. A. Luchinskaya, P. V. E. McClintock
and T. Mullin, ed., Stochaos: Stochastic and Chaotic Dynamics in the Lakes, American
Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY, 5ior02:221-225.
4. Holling, C. S. 1959, The components of predation as revealed by a study of smallmammal predation of the European pine sawfly, Canadian Entomologist 91: 293-320.
5. Pekalski, A. 2004, A Short Guide To Predator-Prey Lattice Models, Computer Simulations, Computing in Science & Engineering.
6. Arrow, K. et al. 1995, Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment,
Science, vol. 268.
7. Rosenblum, M. et al. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 1804.
8. Davis, H. 1960, Introduction to Nonlinear Differential and Integral Equations, United
States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.
9. Grafton, R. and Silva-Echenique, J. 1997, How to Manage Nature? Strategies, PredatorPrey Models, and Chaos, Marine Resource Economics, vol. 12, 127143.
10. Lawson, T. 2004, Reorienting Economics: On Heterodox Economics, the Mata and the
Use of Mathematics in Economics, Journal of Economic Methodology 11: 329340.
· · · Lawson, T. 2005, The (Confused) State of Equilibrium Analysis in Modern Economics: an Explanation, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 27: 423444.
· · · Lawson, T. 2006, The Nature of Heterodox Economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics 30: 483505.
11. Goodwin, R. 1967, A Growth Cycle, in Feinstein, C.H. (ed.) Socialism, Capitalism and
Economic Growth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
12. Kaufman, L. and Rousseeuw, P. 1990, Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to
Cluster Analysis, Wiley, New York.
13. Caughley, G. and Sinclair, A. 1994, Wildlife Ecology and Management, Blackwell Science Ltd, Melbourne.
14. Earn, D. et al. 2000, A simple model for complex dynamical transitions in epidemics,
Science 287, 667670.
15. Spencer, P. and Collie, J. 1997, Patterns of population variability in marine fish stocks,
Fisheries Oceanography, 6:188204.
16. Tu, P. and Wilman, E. 1992, A Generalized Predator-Prey Model: Uncertainty and
Management, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23, 123-138.

