Structuring Complexity – Why we Need a Typology for Systemic Risks

Abstract

Systemic risks are increasingly recognized as a defining challenge for contemporary societies, yet research and governance efforts remain fragmented across disciplines, sectors, and institutions. Existing approaches often rely on domain-specific definitions, probabilistic models, or case-based analyses that limit comparability, cumulative learning, and coherent risk governance. This paper responds to the need for greater analytical clarity by developing a conceptual foundation for a typology of systemic risks. The paper is intentionally theory-building and focuses on establishing the analytical approach for typology development rather than deriving an empirical classification. We argue that a central obstacle in systemic risk research is the absence of analytically meaningful boundaries that allow risks to be compared without reducing their dynamic and interconnected nature. To address this challenge, we position systemic risk characteristics as expressions of system behavior and propose systems thinking as an appropriate analytical lens for relating system structures, dynamics, and observed patterns. Building on this perspective, we clarify the distinction between system structure and behavior and show how this distinction enables the identification and differentiation of recurring systemic risk characteristics across heterogeneous cases. The paper contributes by (1) outlining the conceptual limitations that hinder cross-sectoral and consistent systemic risk classification, (2) clarifying the role of a typology for systemic risk research and governance, and (3) providing a conceptual basis for the development of a typology that supports comparison, generalization, and cumulative knowledge building across domains. The proposed framework offers a foundation for future typology development and for more coherent systemic risk governance approaches.