Advertisement

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 265–297 | Cite as

The financial transmission of shocks in a simple hybrid macroeconomic agent based model

  • Tiziana AssenzaEmail author
  • Domenico Delli Gatti
Regular Article

Abstract

Tracking the chain of events generated by an aggregate shock in an Agent Based Model (ABM) is apparently an impossible mission. Employing the methodology described in Assenza and Delli Gatti (J Econ Dyn Control 37(8):1659–1682 2013) (AD2013 hereafter), in the present paper we show that such a task can be carried out in a straightforward way by using a hybrid macro ABM consisting of a IS curve, an Aggregate Supply (AS) curve and a Taylor Rule (TR) in that aggregate investment is a function of the moments of the distribution of firms’ net worth. For each shock (fiscal expansion, monetary tightening, financial shock) we can decompose the change of the aggregate scale of activity (measured by the employment rate) in a first round effect – i.e., the change generated by the shock keeping the moments of the distribution of net worth at the pre-shock level – and a second round effect, i.e., the change brought about by the variation in the moments induced by the aggregate shock. In turn, the second round effect can be decomposed in a term that would show up also in a pure Representative Agent setting (RA component) and a term that is specific to the model with Heterogeneous Agents (HA component). In all the cases considered, the first round effect explains most of the actual change of the output gap. The second round effect is unambiguously negative. The HA component has the same sign of the RA component and explains a sizable fraction of the second round effect.

Keywords

Heterogeneity Financial fragility Aggregation Business cycles 

JEL Classification

C63 E12 E03 E32 E44 E52 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at conferences and seminars in Ancona, Roma, Guildford, New York, Castellon, Nice and Berlin. We would like to thank participants for useful comments and discussions. We are also grateful to two anonymous referees and the Editor for their detailed comments on an earlier draft, that have led to significant improvements. None of the above are responsible for errors in this paper.

Funding

The authors declare they have received no funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agliari A, Delli Gatti D, Gallegati M, Gardini L (2000) Global dynamics in a non-linear model of the equity ratio. J Solitons Fractals 11:961–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assenza T, Delli Gatti D (2013) E Pluribus Unum: macroeconomic modelling for multi-agent economies. J Econ Dyn Control 37(8):1659–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assenza T, Delli Gatti D, Grazzini J (2015) Emergent dynamics of a macroeconomic agent based model with capital and credit. J Econ Dyn Control 50:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernanke B, Gertler M (1989) Agency costs, net worth, and business fluctuations. Am Econ Rev 79(1):14–31Google Scholar
  5. Bernanke B, Gertler M (1990) Financial fragility and economic performance. Q J Econ 105(1):87–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cincotti S, Raberto M, Teglio A (2010) Credit, money and macroeconomic instability in the Agent-based Model and simulator Eurace. Econ: Open-Access Open-Assess E-J 4:26Google Scholar
  7. Cincotti S, Raberto M, Teglio A (2012) Debt deleveraging and business cycles. n agent-based perspective. Econ Open-Access Open-Assess E-J 4:26Google Scholar
  8. Dawid H, Neugart M (2011) Agent-based models for economic policy design. East Econ J 37(1):44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawid H, Gemkow S, Harting P, van der Hoog S, Neugarty M (2012) The Eurace @UnibiModel: an agent-based macroeconomic model for economic policy analysis. Bielefeld Working Papers in Economics and Management No. 05–2012Google Scholar
  10. Delli Gatti D, Diguilmi C, Gaffeo E, Gallegati M, Giulioni G, Palestrini A (2005) A new approach to business fluctuations: heterogeneous interacting agents, scaling laws and financial fragility. J Econ Behav Org 56(4):489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delli Gatti D, Gaffeo E, Gallegati M, Giulioni G, Palestrini A (2008) Emergent macroeconomics: an agent-based approach to business fluctuations. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Delli Gatti D, Desiderio S, Gaffeo E, Cirillo P, Gallegati M (2011) Macroeconomics from the bottom-up. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Roventini A (2006) An evolutionary model of endogenous business cycles. Comput Econ 27(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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(9):1748–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dosi G, Fagiolo G, Napoletano M, Roventini A (2013) Income distribution, credit and fiscal policies in an agent-based Keynesian model. J Econ Dyn Control 37 (8):1598–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaffeo E, Delli Gatti D, Desiderio S, Gallegati M (2008) Adaptive microfoundations for emergent macroeconomics. East Econ J 34(4):441–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallegati M, Palestrini A, Delli Gatti D, Scalas E (2006) Aggregation of heterogeneous interacting agents: the variant representative agent. J Econ Interac Coord 1:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenwald BC, Stiglitz JE (1993) Financial market imperfections and business cycles. Q J Econ 108(1):77–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krusell P, Smith AA (1998) Income and wealth heterogeneity in the macroeconomy. J Polit Econ 106(5):867–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Complexity Lab in Economics (CLE), Department of Economics and FinanceUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of EconomicsUniversity of Amsterdam, CeNDEFAmsterdamNetherlands
  3. 3.CESifo Group MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations