Paul Valcke GUPDA Poster bibliography

Industrialized anthropic forces are physically destabilizing the earth system.

  1. Destabilisation of the earth system :
    1. climate (
    2. biodiversity (IPBES (2019): Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages.
    3. Ressources
      1. Schaffartzik, A.; Mayer, A.; Gingrich, S.; Eisenmenger, N.; Loy, C.; Krausmann, F. The globa metabolic transition: Regional patterns and trends of global material flows, 1950–2010. Global Environmental Change 2014, 26, 87–97. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.013.
      2. Graedel, T.E. On the future availability of the energy metals. Annual Review of Materials Research 2011, 41, 323–335.
  2. The nuance in the role of each country
  3. Humanity always impacted their environment,, yet without necessary damaging it : (

We are destroying natural buffers with irreversible impact in the short term.

  1. Tipping points

We need to identify the main causes and levers of change, towards a just transition that avoids all collapses.

  1. The cause of nature destruction and inequalities share the same roots, Laudato Si’
  2. Limits to growth

Fast, strong systemic changes in our organisation are needed both for mitigation and acclimation.

  1. IPCC third group
  2. Stranded assets risk

Classical economic theoretical constructions show their limits due to their theoretical core, especially for coupling

We build alternatives based on complexity modelling and dissipative systems, closer to biophysical structures

Definition of complexity

The definition of environment

The definition of justice


  • Long-run models Atkinson, A.B., 1969. The timescale of economic models: How long is the long run? The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, 137–152.
  • Peering over the edge of the short period? The Keynesian Roots of Stock-Flow Consistent Macroeconomic Models


Limits to growth

Goodwin Model

  • The Stock-Flow Consistent Approach
  • The Phillips Curve is Alive and Well: Inflation and the NAIRU During the Slow Recovery
  • Goodwin, R.M., 1967. A growth cycle. In Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth,
    editor C.H. Feinstein. Cambridge University Press, London, 54–58.
  • Desai, M., Henry, B., Mosley, A., and Pemberton, M., 2006. A clarification of the Goodwin
    model of the growth cycle. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 30, no. 12,
  • van der Ploeg, F., 1987. Growth cycles, induced technical change, and perpetual conflict
    over the distribution of income. Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 9, 1–12.

Debt, climate abbatement

Refined model

  • CES model : Bastidas, D., Fabre, A. & Mc Isaac, F. Minskyan classical growth cycles: stability analysis of a stock-flow consistent macrodynamic model. Math Finan Econ 13, 359–391 (2019).
  • Inventory growth cycles with debt-financed investment
  • Desai, M., 1973. Growth cycles and inflation in a model of the class struggle. Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 6, no. 6, 527–545.
  • Grasselli, M.R. and Costa Lima, B., 2012. An analysis of the Keen model for credit expansion,asset price bubbles and financial fragility. Mathematics and Financial Economics, vol. 6, no. 3, 191–210.
  • Keen, S., 1995. Finance and economic breakdown: Modeling Minsky’s “Financial Instability Hypothesis”. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 17, no. 4, 607–635.
  • Nguyen Huu, A. and Costa-Lima, B., 2014. Orbits in a stochastic Goodwin–Lotka–Volterra
    model. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 419, no. 1, 48–67.

Multiple sectors

  • Costa Lima, B., Grasselli, M., Wang, X.S., and Wu, J., 2014. Destabilizing a stable crisis:
    Employment persistence and government intervention in macroeconomics. Structural
    Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 30, 30 – 51.


  • Grasselli, M.R. and Maheshwari, A., 2017. A comment on ‘Testing Goodwin: growth
    cycles in ten OECD countries’.
  • Dibeh, G., Luchinsky, D., Luchinskaya, D., and Smelyanskiy, V., 2007. A Bayesian estimation
  • of a stochastic predator-prey model of economic fluctuations. In Noise and
    Stochastics in Complex Systems and Finance, editor J.K.S.B.R.N. Mantegna, vol. 6601 of
    SPIE Proceedings. 10.
  • Flaschel, P., 2009. The Goodwin distributive cycle after fifteen years of new observations.In Topics in Classical Micro- and Macroeconomics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 465–480.
  • Garcia-Molina, M. and Medina, E., 2010. Are there Goodwin employment-distribution
    cycles? International empirical evidence. Cuadernos de Economia, vol. 29, 1–29
  • Goldstein, J.P., 1999. Predator-prey model estimates of the cyclical profit squeeze. Metroeconomica,vol. 50, no. 2, 139–173.
  • Harvie, D., 2000. Testing Goodwin: Growth cycles in ten OECD countries. Cambridge
    Journal of Economics, vol. 24, no. 3, 349–76.
  • Massy, I., Avila, A., and Garcia-Molina, M., 2013. Quantitative evidence of Goodwin’s non-linear growth cycles. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 7, 1409–1417.
  • Mohun, S. and Veneziani, R., 2006. Goodwin cycles and the U.S. economy, 1948-2004.
    MPRA paper, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Moura Jr., N. and Ribeiro, M.B., 2013. Testing the Goodwin growth-cycle macroeconomic dynamics in Brazil. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 392, no. 9, 2088 – 2103.
  • Ryzhenkov, A.V., 2009. A Goodwinian model with direct and roundabout returns to scale
    (an application to Italy). Metroeconomica, vol. 60, no. 3, 343–399.
  • Tarassow, A., 2010. The empirical relevance of Goodwin’s business cycle model for the US economy. MPRA Paper 21012, University Library of Munich, Germany.