Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Modeling Power and Authority: An Emergentist View from Afghanistan

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Simulating Social Complexity

Part of the book series: Understanding Complex Systems ((UCS))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to provide a critical overview of state-of-the-art models that deal with power and authority and to present an alternative research design. The chapter is motivated by the fact that research on power and authority is confined by a general lack of statistical data. However, the literal complexity of structures and mechanisms of power and authority requires a formalized and dynamic approach of analysis if more than a narrative understanding of the object of investigation is sought. It is demonstrated that evidence-driven and agent-based social simulation (EDABSS) can contend with the inclusion of qualitative data and the effects of social complexity at the same time. A model on Afghan power structures exemplifying this approach is introduced and discussed in detail from the data collection process and the creation of a higher order intuitive model to the derivation of the agent rules and the model’s computational implementation. EDABSS not only deals in a very direct way with social reality but also produces complex artificial representations of this reality. Explicit sociocultural and epistemological couching of an EDABSS model is therefore essential and treated as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Schelling (1998) understands a “social mechanism […][as] a plausible hypotheses, or set of plausible hypotheses, that could be the explanation of some social phenomenon, the explanation being in terms of interactions between individuals and other individuals, or between individuals and some social aggregate.” Alternatively, a social mechanism is an interpretation, in terms of individual behavior, of a model that abstractly reproduces the phenomenon that needs explaining.

  2. 2.

    See for a promising corrective Sambanis (2004).

  3. 3.

    Models not discussed in this subsection but of further interest to the reader are Alam et al. (2005), Caldas and Coelho (1999), Guyot et al. (2006), Lustick (2000), Mosler (2006), Rouchier and Thoyer (2006), Saam and Harrer (1999), and Younger (2005). Particularly highlighted should be the work of Mailliard and Sibertin-Blanc (2010) who merge a multi-agent and social network approach to the complexity and transactional nature of power with approaches to power from the French school of sociology and develop against this background a formal logic system.

  4. 4.

    A model not discussed in this section but that is of excellent quality, both in terms of content and innovation is Guyot et al. (2006). The authors analyze and discuss the evolution of power relations on the basis of participatory simulations of negotiation for common pool resources.

  5. 5.

    The term condensation is alternatively denoted by Stachowiak (1973) as reduction and by Casti (1997) as allegorization. Other important modeling principles are simplicity and pragmatism (Lave and March 1975).

  6. 6.

    The literature on qualitative data research has grown considerably in the last years, and the interested reader is referred to, among many others, (Lazer 2001) and (Silverman 2004).

  7. 7.

    We are well aware of the ongoing discussion on induction with regard to case-study research and the interested reader may refer, among others, to Gomm et al. (1992), Eckstein (1992) and Stakes (1978).

  8. 8.

    See for a more complete treatment of endorsements (Alam et al. 2010).

  9. 9.

    Hence, a declarative model architecture does not allow easily for exact simulation replication. Other disadvantages are that declarative models tend to be computationally expensive and ontologically complex.

  10. 10.

    Parts of this and the next paragraph have been taken from Geller and Moss (2007).

  11. 11.

    Monsutti (2004) “explores the basis of cooperation in a situation of war and migration” among the Hazara in Afghanistan through the concepts of solidarity and reciprocity. Nancy Tapper (1991) “reveals the structure of competition and conflict for the control of political and economic resources” through the concept of marriage.

  12. 12.

    Whether a qawm denotes a group or a network is not clear from the evidence. Following Tapper’s (2008) argument, a qawm can take the form of a group or a network, depending on the context.

  13. 13.

    Note that we are not simulating the genesis of a powerful agent, but the emergence of power as a network-like structure in an evidence-based, artificial society. See for the qualitative description of such a genesis (Giustozzi 2006).

  14. 14.

    We do not consider the emergence of conflict in this chapter. See for a preliminary discussion (Gerring 2004).

  15. 15.

    This paragraph is a condensed version of Geller and Moss (2008a). See also Geller and Moss (2007, 2008b).

  16. 16.

    Fuchs (2005) only collected data of elites. In order to compare her results with those generated from the simulation presented here, all ordinary agents, i.e., non-elites, had to be removed from the network to meaningfully calculate the desired network measures. Note that the simulation parameters remained unchanged. Note also that the two networks vary in size: 62 agents participate in the Fuchs network and 30 in the AfghanModel network. This can lead to boundary specification problems.

References

  • Alam, S. J., Geller, A., Meyer, R., & Werth, B. (2010). Modelling contextualized reasoning in complex societies with ‘endorsements’. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/4/6.html.

  • Alam, S. J., Hillebrandt, F., & Schillo, M. (2005). Sociological implications of gift exchange in multiagent systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/3/5.html.

  • Alam, S. J., Meyer, R., Ziervogel, G., & Moss, S. (2008). The impact of HIV/AIDS in the context of socioeconomic stressors: An evidence-driven approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/4/7.html.

  • Axelrod, R. (1995). A model of the emergence of new political actors. In N. Gilbert & R. Conte (Eds.), Artificial societies: The computer simulation of social life (pp. 19–39). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azoy, G. W. (2003). Bukashi: Game and power in Afghanistan (2nd ed.). Long Grove: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P. (1997). How nature works: The science of self organized criticality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bayart, J.-F., Ellis, S., & Hibou, B. (1999). The criminalization of the state in Africa. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Sussex: The Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boero, R., & Squazzoni, F. (2005). Does empirical embeddedness matter? Methodological issues on agent-based models for analytical social science. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/6.html.

  • Boudon, R. (1998). Social mechanisms without black boxes. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanism: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 172–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caldas, J. C., & Coelho, H. (1999). The origin of institutions: socio-economic processes, choice, norms and conventions. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/2/1.html.

  • Canfield, R. L. (1973). Faction and conversion in a plural society: Religious alignments in the Hindu Kush. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfield, R. L. (1988). Afghanistan’s social identities in crisis. In J.-P. Digard (Ed.), Le fait ethnique en Iran et en Afghanistan (pp. 185–199). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (1999). Social power: A point missed in multi-agent, DAI and HCI. In Proceedings of the first european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (pp. 49–62). Cambridge: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti, J. L. (1997). Would-be worlds: How simulation is changing the frontiers of science. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L.-E. (1997). Emergent actors in world politics: How states and nations develop and dissolve. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L.-E. (2001). Agent-based modeling in political science. The Political Methodologist, 10(1), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederman, L.-E. (2003). Modeling the size of wars: From billiard balls to sandpiles. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P.R. (1985) Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: An artificial intelligence approach. Boston: Pitman Advanced Publishing Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank, J. (2003). Introduction. In J. Cruickshank (Ed.), Critical realism: The difference that it makes (pp. 1–14). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, N., Fachada, N., & Rosa, A. C. (2017). Verifying and validating simulations. In Simulating social complexity–A handbook. Chapter 9 in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorronsoro, G. (2005). Revolution unending. London: Hurst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, H. (1992). Case study and theory in political science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 119–164). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A., Heppenstall, A., & Birkin, M. (2017). Understanding simulation results. In Simulating social complexity–A handbook. Chapter 10 in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C. (2005). Machtverhältnisse in Afghanistan: Netzwerkanalyse des Beziehungssystems regionaler Führer (M.A. Thesis). University of Zurich, Zurich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. (2006a) The Emergence of Individual Welfare in Afghanistan. Paper presented at the 20th International Political Science Association World Congress, Fukuoka, July 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. (2006b). Macht, Ressourcen und Gewalt: Zur Komplexität zeitgenössischer Konflikte; Eine agenten-basierte Modellierung. Zurich: vdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. (2010). The political economy of normlessness in Afghanistan. In A. Schlenkhoff & C. Oeppen (Eds.), Beyond the “Wild Tribes”—Understanding modern Afghanistan and its diaspora (pp. 57–70). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. & Moss, S. (2007, 13–14 July). The Afghan nexus: Anomie, neo-patrimonialism and the emergence of small-world networks. Proceedings of UK Social Network Conference, (pp. 86–88). University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A., & Moss, S. (2008a). Growing qawm: An evidence-driven declarative model of Afghan power structures. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(2), 321–335.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A. & Moss, S. (2008b, March 26–29). International contemporary conflict as small-world phenomenon and the hermeneutic net. Paper presented at the annual international studies association conference, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giustozzi, A. (2006). Genesis of a “Prince”: The Rise of Ismael Khan in Western Afghanistan, 1979-1992 (Crisis States Working Papers Series, 4). Crisis States Research Centre, London School of Economics, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giustozzi, A. (2007). War and peace economies of Afghanistan’s strongmen. International Peacekeeping, 14(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glatzer, B. (1998). Is Afghanistan on the brink of ethnic and tribal disintegration? In W. Maley (Ed.), Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban (pp. 167–181). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatzer, B. (2003). Afghanistan (Studien zur Länderbezogenen Konfliktanalyse). Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung/Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (1992). Case study and theory. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts (pp. 234–258). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyot, P., Drogoul, A., & Honiden, S. (2006). Power and negotiation: Lessons from agent-based participatory simulations. In P. Stone & G. Weiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 27–33). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanism: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1991). The paradox of power. Economics and Politics, 3(3), 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, J. (1995). Anarchy and its breakdown. Journal of Political Economy, 103(1), 26–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janata, A., & Hassas, R. (1975). Ghairatman–Der gute Pashtune: Exkurs über die Grundlagen des Pashtunwali. Afghanistan Journal, 2(2), 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznar, L. A., & Frederick, W. (2007). Simulating the effect of nepotism on political risk taking and social unrest. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 13(1), 29–37.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Who gets what, when, how. New York: Meridian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1975). An introduction to models in the social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D. (2001). Review of Cederman, L. E (1997) Emergent actors in world politics: How states and nations develop. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 4(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/reviews/lazer.html.

  • Limpert, E., Stahel, W. A., & Abbt, M. (2001). Log-normal distributions across the sciences: Keys and clues. Bioscience, 51(5), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lustick, I. S. (2000). Agent-based modeling of collective identity: Testing constructivist theory. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(1). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/3/1/1.html.

  • Marks, S. R. (1974). Durkheim’s theory of anomie. American Journal of Sociology, 80(2), 329–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mailliard, M., & Sibertin-Blanc, C. (2010, March 29). What is power? Perspectives from sociology, multi-agent systems and social network analysis (Paper presented at the second symposium on social networks and multiagent systems (SNAMAS 2010). Leicester, UK: De Montfort University). ftp://ftp.irit.fr/IRIT/SMAC/DOCUMENTS/PUBLIS/SocLab/SNAMAS-10.pdf.

  • Medard, J.-F. (1990). L’etat patrimonialise. Politique Africaine, 39, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsutti, A. (2004). Cooperation, remittances, and kinship among the hazaras. Iranian Studies, 37(2), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosler, H.-J. (2006). Better be convincing or better be stylish? A theory based multi-agent simulation to explain minority influence in groups via arguments or via peripheral cues. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/4.html.

  • Moss, S. (1981). An economic theory of business strategy: An essay in dynamics without equilibrium. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S. (1995). Control metaphors in the modelling of decision-making behaviour. Computational Economics, 8(3), 283–301.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S. (1998). Critical incident management: An empirically derived computational model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/4/1.html.

  • Moss, S. (2000). Canonical tasks, environments and models for social simulation. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 6(3), 249–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S. (2001). Game theory: Limitations and an alternative. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 4(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/2.html.

  • Moss, S. (2007). Alternative approaches to the empirical validation of agent-based Models (Technical report, CPM-07-178). Manchester: Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S., & Edmonds, B. (1997). A knowledge-based model of context-dependent attribute preferences for fast moving consumer goods. Omega–International Journal of Management Science, 25(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S., & Edmonds, B. (2005). Sociology and simulation: Statistical and qualitative cross-validation. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1095–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S., Gaylard, H., Wallis, S., & Edmonds, B. (1996). SDML: A multi-agent language for organizational modelling. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S., & Kuznetsova, O. (1996). Modelling the process of market emergence. In J. W. Owsinski & Z. Nahorski (Eds.), Modelling and analysing economies in transition. Warsaw: MODEST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S. A. (1997). The hazaras of Afghanistan: An historical, cultural, economic and political study. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, F. L. (1950). Approaches to the study of power. Political Science Quarterly, 65(2), 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite, W. (1987). New philosophies of social science: Realism, hermeneutics and critical theory. London: Macmillan Education.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1952). The social system. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popitz, H. (1992). Phänomene der Macht (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasuly-Paleczek, G. (1998). Ethnic identity versus nationalism: The Uzbeks of north-eastern Afghanistan and the Afghan State. In T. Atabaki & J. O’Kane (Eds.), Post-Soviet central asia (pp. 204–230). London/New York: Tauris Academic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reno, W. (1998). Warlord politics and African states. Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L. F. (1948). Variation of the frequency of fatal quarrels with magnitude. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 43(244), 523–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouchier, J., O’Connor, M., & Bousquet, F. (2001). The creation of a reputation in an artificial society organised by a gift system. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 4(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/8.html.

  • Rouchier, J., & Thoyer, S. (2006). Votes and lobbying in the European decision-making process: application to the european regulation on GMO release. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/1.html.

  • Roy, O. (1992). Ethnic identity and political expression in Northern Afghanistan. In J.-A. Gross (Ed.), Muslims in Central Asia: Expressions of identity and change (pp. 73–86). Durham/London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, O. (1994). The new political elite of Afghanistan. In M. Weiner & A. Banuazizi (Eds.), The politics of social transformation in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan (pp. 72–100). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, O. (1995). Afghanistan: From holy war to civil war. Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, O. (1998). Has Islamism a future in Afghanistan? In W. Maley (Ed.), Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban (pp. 199–211). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, B. R. (1992). Political elites in Afghanistan: Rentier state building, Rentier state wrecking. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24(1), 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, B. R. (2007). Saving Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs, 86(1), 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saam, N. J., & Harrer, A. (1999). Simulating norms, social inequality, and functional change in artificial societies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(1). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/1/2.html.

  • Sambanis, N. (2004). Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war. Perspectives of Politics, 2(2), 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence, societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Interpreting and understanding simulations: The philosophy of social simulation. In Simulating social complexity—A handbook. Chapter in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1998). Social mechanisms and social dynamics. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanism: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 32–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schetter, C., Glassner, R., & Karokhail, M. (2007). Beyond warlordism: The local security architecture in Afghanistan. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 2, 136–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahrani, M. N. (1998). The future of state and the structure of community governance in Afghanistan. In W. Maley (Ed.), Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban (pp. 212–242). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahrani, M. N. (2002). War, factionalism, and the state in Afghanistan. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 715–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, I. (2005). The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (Ed.). (2004). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snidal, D. (1985). The game theory of international politics. World Politics, 38(1), 25–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofsky, W. (2002). Zeiten des Schreckens: Amok, Terror, Krieg. Frankfurt A. M.: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowiak, M. (1973). Allgemeine modelltheorie. Wien/New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stakes, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. The Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapper, N. (1991). Bartered brides: Politics, gender and marriage in an Afghan Tribal Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tapper, R. (2008). Who are the Kuchi? Nomad self-identities in Afghanistan. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14, 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarzi, S. M. (1993). Afghanistan in 1992: A Hobbesian State of nature. Asian Survey, 33(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNODC (2006). Afghanistan’s drug industry: Structure, functioning, dynamics, and implications for counter-narcotics policy. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime/The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie (5th ed.). Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidmann, N. & Cederman, L.-E. (2005). Geocontest: Modeling strategic competition in geopolitical systems. In K. Troitzsch (ed.) Proceedings of the european social simulation association annual conference (ESSA), (pp. 179–185) Koblenz, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wily, L. A. (2004). Looking for peace on the pastures: Rural land relations in Afghanistan. Kabul: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Younger, S. (2005). Violence and revenge in egalitarian societies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(4). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/11.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bruce Edmonds, Martin Neumann, and Flaminio Squazzoni for thoughtful and helpful comments. We also thank Zemaray Hakimi for translation and facilitator skills, Sayyed Askar Mousavi for advice in the data collection process, Shah Jamal Alam, Ruth Meyer, and Bogdan Werth for modeling support, and the Bibliotheca Afghanica for access to its library.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scencei–Analytics for All, 1420 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA

    Armando Geller

  2. Scott and Linda Moss Associates, Brookcliffe House, Derbyshire and Koblenz University, Mainz, Germany

    Scott Moss

Authors
  1. Armando Geller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott Moss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando Geller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Bruce Edmonds

  2. Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Business School, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Ruth Meyer

Further Reading

Further Reading

Whereas the literature on power and authority is overwhelming, published work on power and authority and modeling and simulation is, comparatively speaking, meager. For further reading we suggest Alam et al. (2005) and Rouchier et al. (2001) for models concerned with the emergence of structures and authority in gift exchange, Geller and Moss (2008a) and Alam et al. (2008) for empirical models relevant to power and authority, Axelrod (1995) and Cederman (1997) for applications of modeling power to conflict in international relations, Mailliard and Sibertin-Blanc (2010) for a good discussion of multiagent simulation and power from a sociological perspective, and finally Guyot et al. (2006) for a participatory modeling approach with relevance to power and authority.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Geller, A., Moss, S. (2017). Modeling Power and Authority: An Emergentist View from Afghanistan. In: Edmonds, B., Meyer, R. (eds) Simulating Social Complexity. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66948-9_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66947-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66948-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics