Mike, it just occurred to me, because he posted here today, but I would bet that David Friedman has done some work on this topic. But I can’t recommend anything as I am only familiar with the odd video’s appearance and The Machinery of Freedom.
This video in particular may help indicate why I suspect he has written on the phenomena you are seeking knowledge about.
I just applied to Mises for the summer in a related area. I’m also working on a paper on this topic. I come at it a bit unusually - I’m a math grad student, so my approach is more formal and abstract than the average economist working on chaos. (A lot of chaos theorists in economists tend to think that chaos theory is a great way to prop up socialist argument - I take this to be a case of “path dependency” or “lock-in” rather than a fact about how chaos looks in economics.) I think Austrians and chaos theorists have a lot to say to each other. Austrians can point out to chaos theorists that they contradict themselves - they talk about lock-in and path-dependency as characteristics of a system, fair enough - but then believe that the way to get out of the path is government - which is just another complex system. Why shouldn’t it have these features? In other words, you can’t have a theory about interactions and then bring in a group of people as a god from the machine. But chaos theorists also have things to say to Austrians. What we tend to do is take axioms (could also call them simple rules for interactions - even the autistic principles influence interactions) and logically derive consequences, such as “the law of diminishing marginal returns.” What we’ve done, then, is churn out more rules, but we’ve still said little about economies. If we want to give a picture of an economy, we need to see how these rules interrelate with people in the picture, not just logically. So chaos allows Austrians to actually paint a picture of a rich economy. (I relate this to Kirzner’s point about Menger’s “all-encompassing vision of an economy driven by the subjective wants of consumers” and how his students undercut his vision by taking only parts of it, such as the subjective theory of value.)
I tend to think that Boundaries of Order was an approach towards this, and in ways quite good, but in other ways it falls short. The biggest issue is that it had the feel of many libertarian books - many books feel like the author started with his point “freedom is good” or whatever, and then found a language to express the point in. This one feels like he expressed his point in the language of complexity, without necessarily using many of the insights of complexity. That is, rather than derive the conclusion from chaos theory, he stated it in terms of chaos theory. Personally, I don’t think it’s reasonable to attempt to derive “markets and property” from chaos directly, I don’t think it can be done. Rather, I’d derive ethics from chaos, then markets from ethics, then finally use chaos to paint a picture, as above. But I wouldn’t say that chaos in economics can be used to show that markets are good, at least not directly.