Advertisement

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 467–538 | Cite as

Macroeconomics with heterogeneous agent models: fostering transparency, reproducibility and replication

  • Herbert DawidEmail author
  • Philipp Harting
  • Sander van der Hoog
  • Michael Neugart
Regular Article

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed description of the Eurace@Unibi model, which has been developed as a versatile tool for macroeconomic analysis and policy experiments. The model explicitly incorporates the decentralized interaction of heterogeneous agents across different sectors and regions. The modeling of individual behavior is based on heuristics with empirical microfoundations. Although Eurace@Unibi has been applied successfully to different policy domains, the complexity of the structure of the model, which is similar to other agent-based macroeconomic models, makes it hard to communicate to readers the exact working of the model and enable them to check the robustness of obtained results. This paper addresses these challenges by describing the details of all decision rules, interaction protocols and balance sheet structures used in the model. Furthermore, we discuss the use of a virtual appliance as a tool allowing third parties to reproduce the simulation results and to replicate the model. The paper illustrates the potential use of the virtual appliance by providing some sensitivity analyses of the simulation output carried out using this tool.

Keywords

Agent-based macroeconomics Replication Reproduction Eurace@Unibi 

JEL Classification

C63 E17 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the substantial contributions of Simon Gemkow to the development and implementation of the Eurace@Unibi model and the associated R-scripts and of Gregor Böhl to the development and implementation of the ETACE Virtual Appliance. The paper has profited from helpful comments from two anonymous referees.

Funding Information

This research has been supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 grant No. 649186 - Project ISIGrowth.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arifovic J, Bullard J, Kostyshyna O (2013) Social learning and monetary policy rules. Econ J 123:38–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashraf Q, Gershman B, Howitt P (2016) How inflation affects macroeconomic performance: An agent-based computational investigation. Macroecon Dyn 20:558–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assenza T, Delli Gatti D (2013) E Pluribus Unum: Macroeconomic modelling for multi-agent economies. J Econ Dyn Control 37:1659–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barde S (2016) Direct comparison of agent-based models of herding in financial markets. J Econ Dyn Control 73:329–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barde S (2017) A practical, accurate, information criterion for Nth order Markov processes. Comput Econ 50:281–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barde S, Van der Hoog S (2017) An empirical validation protocol for large-scale agent-based models, Studies in Economics 1712, School of Economics, University of KentGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discret choice analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Blinder A (1991) Why are prices sticky? Preliminary results from an interview study. Am Econ Rev 81:89–96Google Scholar
  9. Böhl G, van der Hoog S, Harting P (2014) ETACE Virtual Appliance, Data Publication Bielefeld University.  https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2674041
  10. Brock WA, Durlauf SN (2001) Discrete choice with social interactions. Rev Econ Stud 68:235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burda M, Mertens A (2001) Estimating wage losses of displaced workers in Germany. Labour Econ 8:15–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caiani A, Godin A, Caverzasi E, Gallegati M, Kinsella S, Stiglitz JE (2016) Agent based-stock flow consistent macroeconomics: Towards a benchmark model. J Econ Dyn Control 69:375–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer C, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Almenberg J, Altmejd A, Chan T, Heikensten E, Holzmeister F, Imai T, Isaksson S, Nave G, Pfeiffer T, Razen M, Wu H (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics, Science, March, 18–37Google Scholar
  14. Carroll C, Summers L (1991) Consumption growth parallels income growth: Some new evidence, in national saving and economic performance. In: Bernheim B, Shoven J (eds). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 305–348Google Scholar
  15. Chiarella C, He X (2001) Asset price and wealth dynamics under heterogeneous expectations. Quant Finan 1:509–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiarella C, He X-Z (2003) Heterogeneous beliefs, risk, and learning in a simple asset-pricing model with a market maker. Macroecon Dyn 7:503–536Google Scholar
  17. Coakley S, Chin L-S, Holcomb M, Greenough C, Worth D (2012) Flexible large-scale agent modelling environment (FLAME), University of Sheffield and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, STFC, License: Lesser GPL v3. https://github.com/FLAME-HPC/
  18. Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Dawid H (2015) Modeling the economy as a complex system. In: Alves-Furtado B, Sakowski P, Tovolli M (eds) Modeling Complex Systems for Public Policies. IPEA, Brasilia, pp 191–216Google Scholar
  20. Dawid H, Delli Gatti D (2018) Agent-based macroeconomics. In: Hommes C, LeBaron B (eds) Handbook of Computational Economics vol. 4: Heterogeneous Agent Modeling. North-Holland, pp 63–156Google Scholar
  21. Dawid H, Gemkow S (2014) How do social networks contribute to wage inequality? Insights from an agent-based analysis. Ind Corp Chang 23:1171–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, Neugart M (2009) On the effects of skill upgrading in the presence of spatial labor market frictions: an agent-based analysis of spatial policy design. Journal of Artifical Societies and Social Simulation – JASSS 12:4Google Scholar
  23. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, Neugart M (2012a) Labor market integration policies and the convergence of regions: The role of skills and technology diffusion. J Evol Econ 22:543–562Google Scholar
  24. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, Neugart M, Kabus K, Wersching K (2008) Skills, innovation and growth: an agent-based policy analysis. J Econ Stat 228:251–275Google Scholar
  25. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, van der Hoog S, Neugart M (2011) Eurace@Unibi Model v1.0 User Manual, Technical Report Bielefeld UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, van der Hoog S, Neugart M (2018a) Agent-based macroeconomic modeling and policy analysis: The Eurace@Unibi model. In: Chen S-H, KM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Computational Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press, chap. 17, pp 490–519Google Scholar
  27. Dawid H, Harting P (2011) Capturing firm behavior in agent-based models of industry evolution and macroeconomic dynamics. In: Bünstorf G (ed) Applied Evolutionary Economics, Behavior and Organizations. Edward-Elgar, pp 103–130Google Scholar
  28. Dawid H, Harting P, Neugart M (2014) Economic convergence: Policy implications from a heterogeneous agent model. J Econ Dyn Control 44:54–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dawid H, Harting P, Neugart M (2018b) Cohesion policy and inequality dynamics: Insights from a heterogeneous agents macroeconomic model. J Econ Behav Organ 150:220–255Google Scholar
  30. Dawid H, Harting P, Neugart M (2018c) Fiscal transfers and regional economic growth. Rev Int Econ 26:651–671Google Scholar
  31. Dawid H, Harting P, van der Hoog S, Neugart M (2012b) The Eurace@Unibi model: an Agent-Based macroeconomic model for economic policy analysis, Bielefeld Working Papers in Economics and Managment No. 05–2012Google Scholar
  32. Dawid H, Harting P, van der Hoog S, Neugart M (2017) Data for the paper: Macroeconomic Analysis with a Heterogeneous Agent Model: Fostering Transparency Reproducibility and Replicability, Data publication, Bielefeld University.  https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2908623
  33. Dawid H, Neugart M (2011) Agent-based models for economic policy design. East Econ J 37:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. De Grauwe P, Macchiarelli C (2015) Animal spirits and credit cycles. J Econ Dyn Control 59:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Deaton A (1991) Saving and liquidity constraints. Econometrica 59:1221–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Delli Gatti D, Desiderio S, Gaffeo E, Cirillo P, Gallegati M (2011) Macroeconomics from the bottom-up. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Napoletano M, Roventini A, Treibich T (2015) Fiscal and monetary policies in complex evolving economies. J Econ Dyn Control 52:166–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Roventini A (2010) Schumpeter meeting Keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles. J Econ Dyn Control 34:1748–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fabiani S, Druant M, Hernando I, Kwapil C, Landau B, Loupias C, Martins F, Matha T, Sabbatini R, Stahl H, Stokman A (2006) What firm surveys tell us about price-setting behavior in the euro Area. International Journal of Central Banking 2:3–47Google Scholar
  40. Fagiolo G, Roventini A (2012) Macroeconomic policy in DSGE and agent-based models. Revue de l’OFCE 124:67–116Google Scholar
  41. Gemkow S, Harting P, van der Hoog S (2014) Eurace@Unibi Model v1.0 Source Code, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, License: EULA.  https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2900767
  42. Gemkow S, van der Hoog S (2012) R data analysis scripts, Bielefeld university, Bielefeld, unpublished, License: GPL v3Google Scholar
  43. Gilbert N, Terna P (2000) How to build and use Agent-Based models in social science. Mind and Society 1:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Grazzini J, Richiardi M (2015) Estimation of agent-based models by simulated minimum distance. J Econ Dyn Control 51:148–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hommes C (2013) Behavioral rationality and heterogeneous expectations in complex economic systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hommes CH, Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (2006) Heterogeneous agent models in economics and finance. In: Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2: Agent-Based Computational Economics. Elsevier, North-Holland, pp 1109–1186Google Scholar
  47. van der Hoog S (2018a) The limits to credit growth: Mitigation policies and macroprudential regulations to foster macrofinancial stability and sustainable debt. Comput Econ 52:873– 920Google Scholar
  48. van der Hoog S (2018b) Surrogate modelling in (and of) agent-based models: A prospectus. Comput Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-018-9802-0
  49. van der Hoog S, Dawid H (2018) Bubbles crashes and the financial cycle: The impact of banking regulation on deep recessions, Macroeconomic Dynamics.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100517000219
  50. Howitt P (2012) What have central bankers learned from modern macroeconomic theory? J Macroecon 34:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kiran M (2017) X-Machines for agent-based modeling: FLAME perspectives. Computer and Information Science Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton Fla.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kirman A (2010) Complex economics: Individual and collective rationality. Graz Schumpeter Lectures. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kotler P, Keller K (2009) Marketing management, 9th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  54. Krishnamruthi L, Raj SP (1988) A model of brand choice and purchase quantity price sensitivities. Mark Sci 7:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liesz TJ (2005) Why pecking order theory should be included in introductory finance courses, School of Business & Professional Studies, Mesa State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  56. Lorscheid I, Heine B-O, Meyer M (2012) Opening the ‘black box’ of simulations: increased transparency and effective communication through the systematic design of experiments. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 18:22–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Malhotra N (1984) The use of linear logit models in marketing research. J Mark Res 11:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mandel A, Jaeger C, Fuerst S, Lass W, Lincke D, Meissner F, Pablo-Marti F, Wolf S (2010) Agent-based dynamics in disaggregated growth models, CES Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  59. Mandel A, Landini S, Gallegati M, Gintis H (2015) Price dynamics, financial fragility and aggregate volatility. J Econ Dyn Control 51:257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Nagle T, Hogan J, Zale J (2011) The strategy and tactics of pricing: a guide to growing more profitably. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  62. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  63. Ongena S, Smith DC (2000) What determines the number of bank relationships? Cross-country evidence. J Financ Intermed 9:26–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004) Benefits and Wages: OECD indicators. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  65. Peng R (2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334:1226–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Piva M, Vivarelli M (2009) Corporate skills as an ex-ante incentive to R&D investment. Int J Manpow 30:835–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  68. Richiardi M (2016) The future of agent-based modelling. East Econ J 34:11–22Google Scholar
  69. Russo A, Riccetti L, Gallegati M (2016) Increasing inequality, consumer credit and financial fragility in an agent based macroeconomic model. J Evol Econ 26:25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Seppecher P, Salle I (2015) Deleveraging crises and deep recessions: a behavioural approach. Appl Econ 47:3771–3790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Silver E, Pyke D, Peterson R (1998) Inventory management and production planning and scheduling. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Simon H (1959) Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. Am Econ Rev 49:253–283Google Scholar
  73. Sims C (1980) Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sinitskaya E, Tesfatsion L (2015) Macroeconomies as constructively rational games. J Econ Dyn Control 61:152–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vandenbussche J, Aghion P, Meghir C (2006) Growth, distance to frontier and composition of human capital. J Econ Growth 11:97–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weddepohl C (1995) A cautious price adjustment mechanism: chaotic behavior. J Econ Behav Organ 27:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilensky U, Rand W (2007) Making models match: Replicating an Agent-Based model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 4:2Google Scholar
  78. Wind J, Mahajan V (1981) Designing product and business portfolios. Harv Bus Rev 59:155–165Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Economic Theory and Computational Economics (ETACE), Department of Business Administration and Economics and Center for Mathematical EconomicsBielefeld University, Universitaetsstr. 25BielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Chair for Economic Theory and Computational Economics (ETACE), Department of Business Administration and EconomicsBielefeld University, Universitaetsstr. 25DarmstadtGermany
  3. 3.Department of Law and EconomicsTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations