Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 17–41 | Cite as

Agents of Change and the Approximation of Network Outcomes: a Simulation Study

Article

Abstract

This paper reports results of a simulation designed to evaluate the precision of Neumann approximations of outcomes of networked economic systems. We simulate systems with Erdös-Renyi, Watts-Strogatz, and Barabási-Albert networks. We discuss the conditions under which second-order approximations of economic outcomes generate small errors. We find that in certain economic systems data requirement is significantly reduced if the research goal is to predict economic outcomes of targeted agents (as opposed to outcomes of the entire system). Despite the systems’ complex network structure, our simulations indicate that sampling the targeted group, its connections, and the connections of its connections is sufficient to predict outcomes. As a result, economic policy that targets this specific group should focus on agents in the two-order of distance sample as opposed to the entire network. This sample of agents can be thought of as the group’s agents of change or opinion leaders.

Keywords

Neumann series Neumann approximations Networks Snowball sampling Networked systems 

References

  1. Anselin L (2001) Spatial econometrics. A companion to theoretical econometricsGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (2003) Spatial externalities, spatial multipliers, and spatial econometrics. Int Reg Sci Rev 26(2):153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L, Lozano-Gracia N, Deichmann U, Lall S (2010) Valuing access to water: a spatial hedonic approach, with an application to bangalore, india. Spat Econ Anal 5(2):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baller RD, Anselin L, Messner SF, Deane G, Hawkins DF (2001) Structural covariates of us county homicide rates: incorporating spatial effects. Criminology 39(3):561–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási AL, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439):509–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramoullé Y (2001) Interdependent utilities, preference indeterminacy, and social networks. Université de Toulouse,[mimeo] Google Scholar
  7. Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B (2009) Identification of peer effects through social networks. J Econ 150(1):41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choromański K, Matuszak M, Mikisz J (2013) Scale-free graph with preferential attachment and evolving internal vertex structure. J Stat Phys 151(6):1175–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley T, Udry C (2001) Social learning through networks: the adoption of new agricultural technologies in ghana. Am J Agric Econ 83(3):668–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copic J, Jackson MO, Kirman A (2009) Identifying community structures from network data via maximum likelihood methods. BE J Theor Econ 9(1)Google Scholar
  11. Costenbader E, Valente TW (2003) The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Soc Netw 25(4):283–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duflo E, Saez E (2002) Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of colleagues choices. J Publ Econ 85(1):121–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdös P, Renyi A (1959) On random graphs. Publ Math 6:290–297Google Scholar
  14. Erickson BH, Nosanchuk TA (1983) Applied network sampling. Soc Netw 5(4):367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank O (1979) Sampling and estimation in large social networks. Soc Netw 1(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galaskiewicz J (1991) Estimating point centrality using different network sampling techniques. Soc Netw 13(4):347–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaeser EL, Sacerdote BI, Scheinkman JA (2003) The social multiplier. J Eur Econ Assoc 1(2-3):345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Illenberger J, Flötteröd G (2012) Estimating network properties from snowball sampled data. Soc Netw 34(4):701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katz L (1953) A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika 18(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelejian H, Prucha I (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17(1):99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR, Yuzefovich Y (2004) Instrumental variable estimation of a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances: large and small sample results. Adv Econ 18:163–198Google Scholar
  22. Lam S, Schaubroeck J (2000) A field experiment testing frontline opinion leaders as change agents. J Appl Psychol 85 (6):987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laschever R (2013) Keeping up with ceo jones: Benchmarking and executive compensation. J Econ Behav Organ 93:78-100Google Scholar
  24. Lee L (2003) Best spatial two-stage least squares estimators for a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Econ Rev 22(4):307–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin X (2010) Identifying peer effects in student academic achievement by spatial autoregressive models with group unobservables. J Labor Econ 28(4):825–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacRae D (1960) Direct factor analysis of sociometric data. Sociometry 23(4):360–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manski CF (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60(3):531–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer C (2000) Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra, Volume 2. Society for Industrial and Applied MathematicsGoogle Scholar
  29. Monge M, Hartwick F, Halgin D (2008) How change agents and social capital influence the adoption of innovations among small farmers. Technical report, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00761. Washington, DC: IFPRIGoogle Scholar
  30. Nair H, Manchanda P, Bhatia T (2010) Asymmetric social interactions in physician prescription behavior: The role of opinion leaders. J Mark Res 47(5):883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neilson W, Wichmann B (2014) Social networks and non-market valuations. J Environ Econ Manag 67(2):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neilson W, Winter H (2008) Votes based on protracted deliberations. J Econ Behav Org 67(1):308–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Onnela JP, Saramäki J, Hyvönen J, Szabó G, Lazer D, Kaski K, Kertész J, Barabási AL (2007) Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(18):7332–7336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taussky O (1949) A recurring theorem on determinants. Am Math Mon 56(10):672–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Resource Economics & Environmental SociologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations