Households’ Behaviors and Systemic Financial Instability - Experimental Insights and Agent-based Simulations for Macroeconomic Policy Analyses

Paola D'Orazio

Abstract

Economics profession is currently engaged in a debate on which are the best methodological tools in order to study the dynamics of the real economy and adequately address important policy issues and social concerns. The present paper suggests the development of an experimentally microfounded Agent-based model in order to cope with the complexity and instability of the macroeconomic environment. The focus of the paper is both on the micro and the macro level, i.e., agents and the environment in which they act and interact. For the micro level, I suggest to design an experiment in order to gain insights into agents’ behaviors. For the macro level, I plan to build an ABM where agents are estimated, rather than calibrated, by using experimental data.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (2002). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. American Economic Review, 92(3):411-433.
  2. Arifovic, J. (1996). The behavior of the exchange rate in the genetic algorithm and experimental economies. Journal of Political Economy, 104(3):510-41.
  3. Arifovic, J. (2000). Evolutionary algorithms in macroeconomic models. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 4:373- 414.
  4. Arthur, W. B. (1991). Designing Economic Agents that Act like Human Agents: A Behavioral Approach to Bounded Rationality. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 81(2):353-359.
  5. Arthur, W. B. (1993). On designing economic agents that behave like human agents. Journal of Ecolutionary Economics, 3:1-22.
  6. Ballinger, T. P., Palumbo, M. G., and Wilcox, N. T. (2003). Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: an experiment. Economic Journal, 113(490):920-947.
  7. Binmore, K. (1999). Why Experiment in Economics? Economic Journal, 109(453):16-24.
  8. Birchenhall, C. R. (1995). Genetic algorithms, classifier systems and genetic programming and their use in the models of adaptive behaviour and learning. The Economic Journal, 105(430):788-795.
  9. Booker, L. B., Goldberg, D. E., and Holland, J. H. (1989). Classifier systems and genetic algorithms. Artificial Intelligence, 40(1-3):235-282.
  10. Brock, W. A. and Hommes, C. H. (1997). A rational route to randomness. Econometrica, 65(5):1059-1096.
  11. Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (2004). Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  12. Carroll, C. (2012a). Lecture notes on solution methods for microeconomicdynamic stochastic optimization problems. Lecture Notes - John Hopkins University.
  13. Carroll, C. D. (1996). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis. NBER Working Papers 5788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Carroll, C. D. (2012b). Representing consumption and saving without a representative consumer. In Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress, NBER Chapters. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Caverzasi, E. and Godin, A. (2013). Stock-flow consistent modeling through the ages. Economics working paper archive, Levy Economics Institute, The.
  16. Chen, S.-H. (2012). Varieties of agents in agent-based computational economics: A historical and an interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 36(1):1-25.
  17. Chen, S.-H. and Yu, T. (2011). Agents learned, but do we? knowledge discovery using the agent-based double auction markets. In Frontiers of Electrical and Electronic Engineering in China, pages 159-170. Springer.
  18. Coller, M. and Williams, M. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2(2):107- 127.
  19. Copeland, M. A. (1949). Social accounting for moneyflows. The Accounting Review, page 254264.
  20. Copeland, M. A. (1962). Some illustrative analytical uses of flow-of-funds data. In The Flow-of Funds Approach to Social Accounting, pages 195-238. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Cubitt, R. and Read, D. (2007). Can intertemporal choice experiments elicit time preferences for consumption? Experimental Economics, 10:369-89.
  22. Davis, D. D. and Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise. Estudios Economicos, 8(2):179-212.
  23. Dawid, H. (1996). Adaptive Learning by Genetic Algorithms: Analytical Results and Applications to Economic Models. Springer Verlag New York, Inc.
  24. Dawid, H. and Dermietzel, J. (2006). How robust is the equal split norm? responsive strategies, selection mechanisms and the need for economic interpretation of simulation parameters. Computational Economics, 28(4).
  25. Delli Gatti, D., Gaffeo, E., Gallegati, M., Giulioni, G., and Palestrini, A. (2008). Emergent Macroeconomics. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  26. Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., Napoletano, M., and Roventini, A. (2013). Income distribution, credit and fiscal policies in an agent-based keynesian model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(8):1598-1625.
  27. Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., and Roventini, A. (2010). Schumpeter meeting keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34(9):1748-1767.
  28. Duffy, J. (2006). Agent-based models and human subject experiments. In Tesfatsion, L. and Judd, K. L., editors, Handbook of Computational Economics, volume 2 of Handbook of Computational Economics, chapter 19, pages 949-1011. Elsevier.
  29. Duffy, J. (2008). experimental macroeconomics. In Durlauf, S. N. and Blume, L. E., editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, volume 3. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, second edition.
  30. Epstein, J. M. (2007). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. In Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Introductory Chapters. Princeton University Press.
  31. Fagiolo, G., Birchenhall, C., and Windrum, P. (2007a). Empirical Validation in Agent-based Models: Introduction to the Special Issue. Computational Economics, 30(3):189-194.
  32. Fagiolo, G., Moneta, A., and Windrum, P. (2007b). A critical guide to empirical validation of agent-based models in economics: Methodologies, procedures, and open problems. Computational Economics, 30(3):195-226.
  33. Giulioni, G., Bucciarelli, E., Silvestri, M., and D'Orazio, P. (2013). Agent-based computational economics and experimental economics: a bridge to progress macroeconomics. manuscript submitted.
  34. Gode, D. and Sunder, S. (1991). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero intelligence (z1) traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Gsia working papers, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
  35. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forschung und wissenschaftliches rechnen 2003, GWDG Bericht.
  36. Hansen, L. P. and Heckman, J. J. (1996). The empirical foundations of calibration. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(1):87-104.
  37. Harrison, G. W., Harstad, R. M., and Rutstrm, E. E. (1995). Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Discussion paper serie b, University of Bonn, Germany.
  38. Holland, J. H. and Miller, J. H. (1991). Artificial adaptive agents in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 81:365-370.
  39. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5):1449-1475.
  40. Kao, S. Y. F. and Velupillai, K. V. (2011). Behavioural economics: Classical and modern. Technical report.
  41. Kinsella, S., Greiff, M., and Nell, E. J. (2011). Income distribution in a stock-flow consistent model with education and technological change. Eastern Economic Journal, 37(1):134-149.
  42. Kirman, A. P. (1992). Whom or What Does The Representative Individual Represent. Journal of Economic Perspective, 6:117-36.
  43. LeBaron, B. (2000). Agent-based computational finance: Suggested readings and early research. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24(5-7):679-702.
  44. LeBaron, B. and Tesfatsion, L. (2008). Modeling macroeconomies as open-ended dynamic systems of interacting agents. American Economic Review, 98(2):246- 50.
  45. Lucas, R. E. (1986). Adaptive behavior and economic theory. Journal of Business, 59:S401-S426.
  46. Minsky, H. P. (1970). Financial instability revisited: the economics of disaster. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington.
  47. Minsky, H. P. (1974). The modeling of financial instability: an introduction. In Modelling and Simulation. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Pittsburg Conference, pages 267-272.
  48. Minsky, H. P. (1992). The Financial Instability Hypothesis. Working Paper 74, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.
  49. Raberto, M., Teglio, A., and Cincotti, S. (2012). Debt, deleveraging and business cycles: An agent-based perspective. Economics - The Open-Access, OpenAssessment E-Journal, 6(27):1-49.
  50. Samuelson, L. (2005). Economic theory and experimental economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1):65-107.
  51. Seppecher, P. (2012). Flexibility of wages and macroeconomic instability in an agent-based computational model with endogenous money. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 16(S2):284-297.
  52. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. The American Economic Review, 49(3):253-283.
  53. Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science. American Economic Review, 72(5):923-55.
  54. Smith, V. L. (2002). Method in Experiment: Rhetoric and Reality. Experimental Economics, 5:91-110.
  55. Smith, V. L., Suchanek, G. L., and Williams, A. W. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56(5):1119-51.
  56. Stachurski, J. (2009). Economic Dynamics. Theory and Computation. MIT Press.
  57. Tesfatsion, L. (2003). Agent-based computational economics: Modeling economies as complex adaptive systems. Information Sciences, 149:263-269.
  58. Velupillai, K. V. (2011). Towards an algorithmic revolution in economic theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(3):401-430.
  59. Waltman, L., Eck, N., Dekker, R., and Kaymak, U. (2011). Economic modeling using evolutionary algorithms: the effect of a binary encoding of strategies. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(5):737-756.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

D'Orazio P. (2014). Households’ Behaviors and Systemic Financial Instability - Experimental Insights and Agent-based Simulations for Macroeconomic Policy Analyses . In Doctoral Consortium - DCAART, (ICAART 2014) ISBN Not Available, pages 15-21


in Bibtex Style

@conference{dcaart14,
author={Paola D'Orazio},
title={Households’ Behaviors and Systemic Financial Instability - Experimental Insights and Agent-based Simulations for Macroeconomic Policy Analyses},
booktitle={Doctoral Consortium - DCAART, (ICAART 2014)},
year={2014},
pages={15-21},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={},
isbn={Not Available},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Doctoral Consortium - DCAART, (ICAART 2014)
TI - Households’ Behaviors and Systemic Financial Instability - Experimental Insights and Agent-based Simulations for Macroeconomic Policy Analyses
SN - Not Available
AU - D'Orazio P.
PY - 2014
SP - 15
EP - 21
DO -