Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science pp 92–112Cite as

Agent Based Computational Economics

  • Reference work entry

Definition of the Subject

Mainstream economic models typically make the assumption that an entire group of agents, e. g. “investors”, can be modeled witha single “rational representative agent”. While this assumption has proven extremely useful in advancing the science of economics byyielding analytically tractable models, it is clear that the assumption is not realistic: people are different one from the other in their tastes,beliefs, and sophistication, and as many psychological studies have shown, they often deviate from rationality in systematic ways.

Agent Based Computational Economics is a framework allowing economics to expand beyond the realm of the “rational representativeagent”. By modeling and simulating the behavior of each agent and the interaction among agents, agent based simulation allows us to investigate thedynamics of complex economic systems with many heterogeneous and not necessarily fully rational agents.

The agent based simulation approach allows economists to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   3,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Agent-based simulation :

A simulation of a system of multiple interacting agents (sometimes also known as “microscopic simulation ”). The “micro” rules governing the actions of the agents are known, and so are their rules of interaction. Starting with some initial conditions, the dynamics of the system are investigated by simulating the state of the system through discrete time steps. This approach can be employed to study general properties of the system, which are not sensitive to the initial conditions, or the dynamics of a specific system with fairly well-known initial conditions, e. g. the impact of the baby boomers' retirement on the US stock market.

Bounded-rationality :

Most economic models describe agents as being fully rational – given the information at their disposal they act in the optimal way which maximizes their objective (or utility) function. This optimization may be technically very complicated, requiring economic, mathematical and statistical sophistication. In contrast, bounded rational agents are limited in their ability to optimize. This limitation may be due to limited computational power, errors, or various psychological biases which have been experimentally documented.

Market anomalies :

Empirically documented phenomena that are difficult to explain within the standard rational representative agent economic framework. Some of these phenomena are the over-reaction and under-reaction of prices to news, the auto-correlation of stock returns, various calendar and day-of-the-week effects, and the excess volatility of stock returns.

Representative agent:

A standard modeling technique in economics, by which an entire class of agents (e. g. investors) are modeled by a single “representative” agent. If agents are completely homogeneous, it is obvious that the representative agent method is perfectly legitimate. However, when agents are heterogeneous, the representative agent approach can lead to a multitude of problems (see [16]).

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Admati A, Pfleiderer P (1988) A theory of intraday patterns: Volume and price variability. Rev Financ Stud 1:3–40

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arthur WB (1994) Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality (The El Farol problem). Am Econ Rev 84:406–411

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arthur WB, Holland JH, Lebaron B, Palmer RG, Tayler P (1997) Asset pricing under endogenous expectations in an artificial stock market. In: Arthur WB, Durlauf S, Lane D (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system II. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brock WA, Hommes CA (1998) Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model. J Econ Dyn Control 22:1235–1274

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Egenter E, Lux T, Stauffer D (1999) Finite size effects in Monte Carlo Simulations of two stock market models. Physica A 268:250–256

    Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein JM, Axtell RL (1996) Complex adaptive systems. In: Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. MIT Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fama E, French K (1988) Permanent and temporary components of stock prices. J Political Econ 96:246–273

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friend I, Blume ME (1975) The demand for risky assets. Am Econ Rev 65:900–922

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gordon J, Paradis GE, Rorke CH (1972) Experimental evidence on alternative portfolio decision rules. Am Econ Rev 62(1):107–118

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grossman S, Stiglitz J (1980) On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. Am Econ Rev 70:393–408

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hellthaler T (1995) The influence of investor number on a microscopic market. Int J Mod Phys C 6:845–852

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hommes CH (2002) Modeling the stylized facts in finance through simple nonlinear adaptive systems. PNAS 99:7221–7228

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jegadeesh N, Titman S (1993) Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. J Finance 48:65–91

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karpoff J (1987) The relationship between price changes and trading volume: A survey. J Financ Quantitative Anal 22:109–126

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kim GW, Markowitz HM (1989) Investment rules, margin, and market volatility. J Portf Manag 16:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kirman AP (1992) Whom or what does the representative agent represent? J Econ Perspectiv 6:117–136

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kohl R (1997) The influence of the number of different stocks on the Levy, Levy Solomon model. Int J Mod Phys C 8:1309–1316

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kroll Y, Levy H, Rapoport A (1988) Experimental tests of the separation theorem and the capital asset pricing model. Am Econ Rev 78:500–519

    Google Scholar 

  19. LeBaron B (2000) Agent-based computational finance: Suggested readings and early research. J Econ Dyn Control 24:679–702

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Levy H (1994) Absolute and relative risk aversion: An experimental study. J Risk Uncertain 8:289–307

    Google Scholar 

  21. Levy H, Lim KC (1998) The economic significance of the cross-sectional autoregressive model: Further analysis. Rev Quant Finance Acc 11:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  22. Levy M, Levy H (1996) The danger of assuming homogeneous expectations. Financ Analyst J 52:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  23. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (1994) A microscopic model of the stock market: Cycles, booms, and crashes. Econs Lett 45:103–111

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (2000) Microscopic simulation of financial markets. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  25. Levy M, Persky N, Solomon, S (1996) The complex dyn of a simple stock market model. Int J High Speed Comput 8:93–113

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lux T (1995) Herd behaviour, bubbles and crashes. Econ J 105:881

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lux T (1998) The socio-economic dynamics of speculative bubbles: Interacting agents, chaos, and the fat tails of returns distributions. J Econ Behav Organ 33:143–165

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lux T, Marchesi M (1999) Volatility clustering in financial markets: A micro-simulation of interacting agents. Nature 397:498

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Orcutt GH, Caldwell SB, Wertheimer R (1976) Policy exploration through microanalytic simulation. The Urban Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Palmer RG, Arthur WB, Holland JH, LeBaron B, Tayler P (1994) Artificial economic life: A simple model of a stock market. Physica D 75:264–274

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Poterba JM, Summers LH (1988) Mean reversion in stock returns: Evidence and implications. J Financial Econs 22:27–59

    Google Scholar 

  32. Samanidou E, Zschischang E, Stauffer D, Lux T (2007) Agent-based models of financial markets. Rep Prog Phys 70:409–450

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Samuelson PA (1989) The judgement of economic science on rational portfolio management: Timing and long horizon effects. J Portfolio Manag 16:4–12

    Google Scholar 

  34. Samuelson PA (1994) The long term case for equities and how it can be oversold. J Portf Management 21:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sargent T (1993) Bounded rationality and macroeconomics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schelling TC (1978) Micro motives and macro behavior. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shiller RJ (1981) Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends? Am Econ Rev 71:421–436

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stauffer D, de Oliveira PMC, Bernardes AT (1999) Monte Carlo Simulation of volatility correlation in microscopic market model. Int J Theor Appl Finance 2:83–94

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Tesfatsion L (2002) Agent-based computational economics: Growing economies from the bottom up. Artif Life 8:55–82

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tesfatsion L (2001) Special issue on agent-based computational economics. J Econ Dyn Control 25:281–293

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Thaler R (ed) (1993) Advances in behavioral finance. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thaler R (1994) Quasi rational economics. Russel Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–480

    MathSciNet  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decision. J Bus 59(4):251–278

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  1. Anderson PW, Arrow J, Pines D (eds) (1988) The economy as an evolving complex system. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of conflict and cooperation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  3. Moss de Oliveira S, de Oliveira H, Stauffer D (1999) Evolution, money, war and computers. BG Teubner, Stuttgart-Leipzig

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Solomon S (1995) The microscopic representation of complex macroscopic phenomena. In: Stauffer D (ed) Annual Rev Comput Phys II. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Moshe Levy

Authors
  1. Moshe Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMTECH LIMITED, 122 Escalle Lane, Larkspur, CA, 94939, USA

    Robert A. Meyers Ph. D. (Editor-in-Chief) (Editor-in-Chief)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag

About this entry

Cite this entry

Levy, M. (2009). Agent Based Computational Economics. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation