Features and Added Value of Simulation Models Using Different Modelling Approaches Supporting Policy-Making: A Comparative Analysis

  • Dragana MajstorovicEmail author
  • Maria A Wimmer
  • Roy Lay-Yee
  • Peter Davis
  • Petra Ahrweiler
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 10)


Using computer simulations in examining, explaining and predicting social processes and relationships as well as measuring the possible impact of policies has become an important part of policy-making. This chapter presents a comparative analysis of simulation models utilised in the field of policy-making. Different models and modelling theories and approaches are examined and compared to each other with respect to their role in public decision-making processes. The analysis has shown that none of the theories alone is able to address all aspects of complex policy interactions, which indicates the need for the development of hybrid simulation models consisting of a combinatory set of models built on different modelling theories. Building such hybrid simulation models will also demand the development of new and more comprehensive simulation modelling platforms.


System Dynamic Model Policy Modelling School Closure Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Modelling Paradigm 
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.


  1. Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert N (2004) Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks (SKIN). In: Leombruni R, Richiardi M (eds) The agent-based computational approach. World Scientific Press, Singapore, pp 284–296Google Scholar
  2. Ahrweiler P, Gilbert N, Pyka, A (2011a) Agency and structure. A socials simulation of knowledgeintensive industries. Comput Math Org Theor 17(1):59–76Google Scholar
  3. Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert N (2011b) A new model for university-industry links in knowledgebased economies. J Prod Innov Manage 28(2):218–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson RE, Hicks C (2011) Highlights of contemporary microsimulation. Soc Sci Comput Rev 29(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Astolfi R, Lorenzoni L, Oderkirk J (2012) A comparative analysis of health forecasting methods. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 59. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/18152015Google Scholar
  6. Bayoumi T (2004) GEM: a new international macroeconomic model, Occasional Paper 239. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. Accessed 29th July 2014
  7. Brouwers L, Cakici B, Camitz M, Tegnell A, Boman M (2009a) Economic consequences to society of pandemic H1N1 influenza 2009– preliminary results for Sweden. Euro Surveillance 14(37):pii= 19333. = 19333 Accessed 29 July 2014
  8. Brouwers L, Camitz M, Cakici B, Mäkilä K, Saretok P (2009b) MicroSim: modeling the Swedish Population. Accessed 29 July 2014
  9. Brown L, Harris A, Picton M, Thurecht L, Yap M, Harding A et al. (2009). Linking micro-simulation and macro-economic models to estimate the economic impact of chronic disease prevention. In: Zaidi A, Harding A, Williamson P (eds) New frontiers in microsimulation modelling. Ashgate, European Centre Vienna, pp 527–556Google Scholar
  10. Butka P, Mach M, Furdik K, Genci J (2011) Design of a system architecture for support of collaborative policy modelling processes. In: Proceedings of SACI 2011, 6th IEEE International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics. Red Hook, NY, USA, Óbuda University, Hungary, IEEE, Curran Associates, Inc, pp 193–198Google Scholar
  11. Carrat F, Vergu E, Ferguson N, Lemaitre M, Cauchemez S, Leach S, Valleron A (2008) Time lines of infection and disease in human influenza: a review of volunteer challenge studies. Am J Epidemiol 167(7):775–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins A, Joseph D, Bielaczyc K (2004) Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. J Learn Sci 13(1):15–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Pearson J (2010) Using micro-simulation to create a synthesized data set and test policy options: the case of health service effects under demographic ageing. Health Policy 97:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460:685–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fasth T, Ihlar M, Brouwers L (2010) VirSim—a model to support pandemic policy making. PLOS Currents Influenza. 2010 Sep 22, 2: RRN1181. doi:10.1371/currents.RRN1181Google Scholar
  16. Fergusson D, Horwood L, Shannon F, Lawton J (1989) The Christchurch child development study: a review of epidemiological findings. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 3:278–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser C, Donnelly CSC, WP H, MD VK, TD H et al. (2009). WHO rapid pandemic assessment collaboration. Pandemic potential of a strain of influenza A (H1N1): early findings. Science 324(5934). PubMed PMID: 19433588, pp. 1557–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert N (2007) Agent-based models. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert N, Troitzsch K (2005) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert N, Pyka A, Ahrweiler P (2001) Innovation networks—a simulation approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 4(3)Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert N, Ahrweiler P, Pyka A (2007) Learning in innovation networks—some simulation experiments. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 374(1):100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert N, Ahrweiler P, Pyka A (2014) Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood DJ, Levin, M. (2006) Introduction to action research: social research for social change. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison RJ, Lin Z, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manage Rev 32(4)1229–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helbig N, Dawes SS, Dzhusupova Z, Klievink B, Mkude CG (2014) Stakeholder engagement in policy development: observations and lessons from international experience. In: Janssen M, Wimmer MA, Deljoo A (eds) Policy practice and digital science—integrating complex systems, social simulation and public administration in policy research. Springer Science, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Jameson A (1996) Numerical uncertainty management in user and student modeling: an overview of systems and issues. User modeling and user adapted interaction, 5, special issue on numerical uncertainty management in user and student modeling, pp 193–251Google Scholar
  28. Kamateri E, Panopoulou E, Tambouris E, Tarabanis K, Ojo A, Lee D, Price D (2014) A comparative analysis of tools and technologies for policy making. In: Janssen M, Wimmer MA, Deljoo A (eds) Policy practice and digital science—integrating complex systems, social simulation and public administration in policy research. Springer Science, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Lay-Yee R, Milne B, Davis P, Pearson J, McLay J (2014) Determinants and disparities: a simulation approach to the case of child health care. Under ReviewGoogle Scholar
  30. Lengwiler Y (2004) A monetary policy simulation game. J Econ Educ 35(2):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lotzmann U, Meyer R (2011) DRAMS—a declarative rule-based agent modelling system. In: Proceedings of 25th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation (pp 77–83)Google Scholar
  32. Lotzmann U, Wimmer MA (2013) Evidence traces for multi-agent declarative rule-based policy simulation. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (DS-RT 2013). IEEE Computer Society, pp115–122Google Scholar
  33. Mannion O, Lay-Yee R, Wrapson W, Davis P, Pearson J (2012) JAMSIM: a microsimulation modelling policy tool. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 15(1):8Google Scholar
  34. Maria A (1997) Introduction to modelling and simulation. Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Winter Simulation, pp 7–13Google Scholar
  35. Martini AP, Trivellato U (1997) The role of survey data in microsimulation models for social policy analysis. Labour 02/1997, 11(1):83–112. (doi:10.1111/1467–9914.00030)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayring P (2011) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, Weinheim und BaselGoogle Scholar
  37. McLay J, Lay-Yee R, Milne B et al (2014) Statistical modelling techniques for dynamic microsimulation: An empirical performance assessment. Under reviewGoogle Scholar
  38. Milne BJ, Lay-Yee R, McLay J, Tobias MTP, Armstrong A, Lynn R et al (2014) A collaborative approach to bridging the research-policy gap through the development of policy advice software. Evid Policy 10(1):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orcutt G (1957) A new type of socio-economic system. Rev Econ Stat 39(2):116–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pyka A, Gilbert N, Ahrweiler P (2007) Simulating knowledge-generation and—distribution processes. Innov Collab Netw, Cybern Syst 38:667–693Google Scholar
  41. Ronald F, Halpern JY (1991) Uncertainty, belief and probability. Computational Intell 7:160–173Google Scholar
  42. Scherer S, Wimmer MA, Markisic S (2013) Bridging narrative scenario texts and formal policy modeling through conceptual policy modeling. Artif Intell Law 21(4):455–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schindler J (2013) About the uncertainties in model design and their effects: an illustration with a land-use model. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 16(4):6Google Scholar
  44. Scholz R, Nokkala T, Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert N (2010) The agent-based NEMO model (SKEIN): simulating European framework programmes. In: Ahrweiler P (ed) Innovation in complex social systems. Routledge Studies in Global Competition (pp 300–314)Google Scholar
  45. Sedehi H (2006) GAIM (Gestione Accoglienza IMmigrati): a System Dynamics Model for Immigration “housing” Management. In: Proceedings of International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Nijmegen, The Netherlands (pp 3359–3367)Google Scholar
  46. Solar O, Irwin A (2010) A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion, Paper 2: Policy and Practice. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  47. Spielauer M (2011) What is social science microsimulation. Soc Sci Comput Rev 29(1):9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Srbljanovic A, Skunca O (2003) An introduction to agent-based modelling and simulation of social processes. Interdiscip Descr Complex Syst 1(1–2):1–8Google Scholar
  49. Statistics Sweden (Statistiska centralbyrån, SCB). (2009). Sweden’s population by sex and age on 31/12/2008. Accessed 28 July 2014
  50. The National Board of Health and Welfare. (2011). A(H1N1) 2009– An evaluation of Sweden’s preparations for and management of the pandemic. Evaluation Report number 2011–8–4Google Scholar
  51. van Egmond S., Zeiss R (2010) Modeling for policy science-based models as performative boundary objects for Dutch policy making. Sci Stud 23(1):58–78Google Scholar
  52. Wallinga JTP (2006) Using data on social contacts to estimate age-specific transmission parameters for respiratory-spread infectious agents. Am J Epidemiol 164(10):936–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wimmer MA (2011) Open government in policy development: from collaborative scenario texts to formal policy models. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Internet Technologies (ICDCIT—2011) (pp 76–91). Berlin, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  54. Wimmer MA, Scherer S, Moss S, Bicking M (2012) Method and tools to support stakeholder engagement in policy development. The OCOPOMO project. Int J Electron Gov Res 8(3):98–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zaidi A, Harding A, Williamson P (2009) New frontiers in microsimulation modeling (Public policy and social welfare. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeigler B (1976) Theory of modeling and simulation.Wiley,NewYorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dragana Majstorovic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria A Wimmer
    • 1
  • Roy Lay-Yee
    • 2
  • Peter Davis
    • 2
  • Petra Ahrweiler
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences (COMPASS Research Centre)University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment GmbHBad Neuenahr-AhrweilerGermany

Personalised recommendations