Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T01:54:56.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregation in agent-based models of economies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2012

Scott E. Page
Scott E. Page*
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agent-based models are often described as bottom-up because macro-level phenomena emerge from the micro-level interactions of agents. These macro-level phenomena include fixed points, cycles, dynamic patterns, and long transients. In this paper, I explore the link between micro-level characteristics—learning rules, diversity, network structure, and externalities—and the macro-level patterns they produce. I focus on why we need agent-level modeling, on how these models produce emergent phenomenon, and on how agent-based models help understand outcomes of social systems in a way that differs from the analytic, equilibrium approach.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 27 , Special Issue 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics , 26 April 2012 , pp. 151 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, P. 1972. More is different. Science 177, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreoni, J., Miller, J. H. 1995. Auctions with adaptive artificial agents. Games and Economic Behavior 10(1), 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, B. 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. B., Holland, J. H., LeBaron, B., Palmer, R. G., Tayler, P. J. 1997. Asset pricing under endogenous expectations in an artificial stock market. In The Economy As An Evolving Complex System II, Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. & Lane, D. (eds). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R., Axtell, R., Epstein, J., Cohen, M. D. 1996. Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 1, 123–141.Google Scholar
Axtell, R. 2001. Zipf distribution of U.S. firm sizes. Science 293(5536), 1818–1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axtell, R. 2003. A Positive Theory of Emergence for Multi-Agent Systems. Working paper, Center on Social and Economic Dynamics. The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Axtell, R., McRae, C.Model Aggregation for Dynamical Systems. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Axtell, R. L. 1999. The Emergence of Firms in a Population of Agents: Local Increasing Returns, Unstable Nash Equilibria, and Power Law Size Distributions. Working paper. Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
Bak, P. 1996. How Nature Works: The Science of Self Organized Criticality. Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bankes, S. 2002. Agent-based modeling: a revolution? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 7199–7200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barabasi, L. 2002. Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What it Means. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bedau, M. A. 1991. Weak emergence. Nos 31(Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, 11, Mind, Causation, and World), 375–399.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuehnert, C., West, G. B. 2007. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 104, 7301–7306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Marchi, S. 2005. Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, J. 2003. Generative Social Science. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, J., Axtell, R. 1996. Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science form the Bottom Up. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gode, D. K., Sunder, S. 1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy 101, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golman, R., Page, S. 2009. Basins of attraction and equilibrium selection under different learning rules. Evolutionary Economics, 20, 49–72.Google Scholar
Glaeser, E., Sacerdote, B., Scheinkman, J. 1996. Crime and social interactions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(2), 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofbauer, J. 2000. From Nash and Brown to Maynard Smith: equilibria, dynamics and ESS. Selection 1, 81–88.Google Scholar
Hong, L., Page, S. 2001. Problem solving by teams of heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic Theory 97, 123–163.Google Scholar
Huberman, B., Glance, N. 1993. Evolutionary games and computer simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90(16), 7716–7718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howitt, P. 2006. Coordination issues in long-run growth. In Handbook of Computational Economics, II: Agent-Based Computational Economics, Tesfatsion, L. & Judd, K. (eds). North Holland.Google Scholar
Iwasa, Y., Andreasen, V., Levin, S. 1987. Aggregation in model ecosystems. I. Perfect aggregation. Ecological Modeling 37, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirman, A. 1992. Whom or what does the representative individual represent? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 6, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, B. 2001. Stochastic volatility as a simple generator of apparent financial power laws and long memory. Quantitative Finance 1(86), 621–631, 929–937.Google Scholar
LeBaron, B. 2006. Agent-based financial markets: matching stylized facts with style. In Post Walrasian Macroeconomics: Beyond the DSGE Model, Colander, D. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1996. The coevolution of automata in the repeated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 29(1), 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. H., Page, S. E. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nirei, M. 2006. Threshold behavior and aggregate fluctuation. Journal of Economic Theory 127, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. 1997. On incentives and updating in agent based models. Computational Economics 10, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. 2006. Essay: path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(1), 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. 2007. Type interactions and the rule of six. Economic Theory 30(2), 223–241.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, S. 1977. Information, incentives, and performance in the (new)2 economid. American Economic Review 67(1), 226–234.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1955. On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42(3–4), 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesfatsion, L. 1997. How economists can get a-life. In The Economy as a Complex Evolving System II. Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S. & Lane, D. (eds). Addison Wesley, 533–565.Google Scholar
Vriend, N. 2000. An illustration of the essential difference between individual and social learning, and its consequences for computational analyses. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, S. 2001. A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
Young, P. 2001. Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar