Advertisement

The Role of Agent-Based Modelling in Demographic Explanation

  • Edmund Chattoe
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

This chapter outlines five difficulties with modelling demographic behavior using Agent-Based Modelling (ABM), with particular reference to the role of social interactions in the diffusion of new contraceptive practices. The first difficulty is the potentially thin character of information and activities relevant to contraception within the wider framework of social action. The second difficulty is ensuring the correct relationship between ABM and existing theories, either based on aggregate statistical patterns or strong homogeneity assumptions about individuals. The third difficulty is ensuring an adequate representation of the contextual nature of social action, both in time and space. The fourth difficulty is to represent the complexity of decision processes adequately, so they can take account of the transmission of different kinds of information: norms, costs and benefits, practices and so on. The final difficulty is the possibility of collecting relevant data for building and testing ABMs. The chapter also draws attention to the connections between these difficulties and suggests solutions where these exist. In some cases, like the modelling of thin processes and cognitive complexity, considering social behavior from an ABM perspective reveals important challenges for social science research that are obscured by other approaches to modelling.

Keywords

Agent Model Static Conception Contraceptive Practice Innovation Diffusion Cognitive Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbott, A. (2001): Transcending General Linear Reality. In: Time Matters: On Theory and Method, 37–63, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L. (1997): Social Network Effects on the Extent of Innovation Diffusion: A Computer Simulation. Organization Science 8(3), 289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, G.S. (1991): A Treatise on the Family, second edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bongaarts, J., Watkins, S.C. (1996): Social Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions. Population and Development Review 22(4), 639–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bousquet, E, Cambier, C., Mullon, C., Morand, P., Quensiere, J. (1994): Simulating Fishermen’s Society In: Gilbert, N., Doran, J. (Eds.): Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. 143–163, UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chattoe, E. (1999): Unanimous Indifference and Diversity in Social Systems: Simulating Mechanisms for Maintenance and Change. IMAGES Working Paper UOS-99-02, November, http://users.ox.ac.u k/~econec/usd.docGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chattoe, E. (2000a): Good Times and Old Clothes: The Importance of Time Planning and Time Use in Consumption. paper presented at the BSA Annual Conference “Making Time/Marking Time”, University of York, 17–20 April, http: //www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/chattoe.htmlGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chattoe, E. (2000b): Why Is Building Multi-Agent Models of Social Systems So Difficult? A Case Study of Innovation Diffusion. paper presented at the XXIV International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE), Mini-Symposium on “Integrating Approaches for Natural Resource Management and Policy Analysis: Bioeconomic Models, Multi-Agent Systems and Cellular Automata”, Berlin, 13–19 August, http: //www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/chattoe.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chattoe, E. (2002): Building Empirically Plausible Multi-Agent Systems: A Case Study of Innovation Diffusion. In: Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A., Canamero, D., Edmonds, B. (Eds.): Socially Intelligent Agents: Creating Relation ships with Computers and Robots, 109–116, Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doran, J., Palmer, M., Gilbert, N., Mellars, P. (1994): The EOS Project: Modelling Upper Palaeolithic Social Change. In: Gilbert, N., Doran, J. (Eds.): Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena, 195–221, UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein, J.M., Axtell, R. (1996): Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. The M.I.T. Press and Brookings Institution Press, Cambridge, MA and Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K.G. (1999): Simulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gladwin, C.H. (1989): Ethnographic Decision Tree Modelling. Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods Volume 19, Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kohler, H.-P. (2001): Fertility and Social Interaction: An Economic Perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montgomery, M.R., Casterline, J.B. (1996): Social Learning, Social Influence, and New Models of Fertility. Population and Development Review 22, Supplement, 151–175Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Notestein, F.W. (1953): Economic Problems of Population Change. In: Dixey, R. (Ed.): Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Agricultural Economists, 13–31, Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosero-Bixby, L., Casterline, J.B. (1993): Modelling Diffusion Effects in Fertility Transition. Population Studies 47(1), 147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund Chattoe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Oxford 3Oxford, OxonUK

Personalised recommendations