Computer Simulation Studies of the Entrepreneurial Market Process

Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)


This chapter reviews a line of research that studies several different theoretical questions in entrepreneurship through novel applications of computer simulation. All of the simulation studies reviewed are based on a shared game-theoretical modeling framework that allows a high level of integration with existing theories. What made these simulations unique was their firm grounding in the theory of the entrepreneurial market process from Austrian economics, and the lack of previous simulation studies in the entrepreneurship field. The focus is on how and why the cooperative game theory framework was chosen, the justification and process of applying the simulation method and the lessons learned from doing so. The aim is to provide entrepreneurship scholars with a better understanding of where and why computer simulation may add something of value to their research as a tool for the analysis of complex systems. The reviewed studies involve artificial economies with a small number of agents, demonstrating that the emergence of complex macro patterns from micro behaviors does not require large numbers of agents.


Austrian economics Computational modeling Cooperative game theory Disequilibrium Market process 


  1. Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(6), 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adegbesan, J. A. (2009). On the origins of competitive advantage: Strategic factor markets and heterogeneous resource complementarity. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adner, R., Pólos, L., Ryall, M. D., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The case for formal theory. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adner, R., & Zemsky, P. (2006). A demand-based perspective on sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 27(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Afuah, A. (2009). Strategic innovation: New game strategies for competitive advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnold, T., & Schwalbe, U. (2002). Dynamic coalition formation and the core. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(3), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Axelrod, R. M. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Axelrod, R. M. (1990). The evolution of cooperation. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Axtell, R. L. (2007). What economic agents do: How cognition and interaction lead to emergence and complexity. The Review of Austrian Economics, 20(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the system dynamics society, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  13. Brandenburger, A. M., & Stuart, H. W. (2007). Biform games. Management Science, 53(4), 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chatain, O. (2010). Value creation, competition, and performance in buyer–supplier relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 76–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatain, O., & Zemsky, P. (2007). The horizontal scope of the firm: Organizational tradeoffs vs. buyer–supplier relationships. Management Science, 53(4), 550–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chavez, A. K. (2004). Adaptive agents in coalition formation games. In S. O. Kimbrough & D. J. Wu (Eds.), Formal modelling in electronic commerce (pp. 421–443). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Chen, M. J. (1996). Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, M. J., & Miller, D. (2012). Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 135–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K. (2007). Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: A radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(4), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crawford, G. C. (2009). A review and recommendation of simulation methodologies for entrepreneurship research. Retrieved from
  21. Cyert, R. M., & Grunberg, E. (1963). Assumption, prediction, and explanation in economics. In R. M. Cyert & J. G. March (Eds.), A behavioral theory of the firm (pp. 298–311). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2007). Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 480–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of value: An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Dooley, K. (2002). Simulation research methods. In J. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 829–848). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Dworman, G. O., Kimbrough, S. O., & Laing, J. D. (1995). On automated discovery of models using genetic programming: Bargaining in a three-agent coalitions game. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edmonds, B. (2005). Simulation and complexity—how they can relate. In V. Feldmann & K. Mühlfeld (Eds.), Virtual worlds of precision—computer-based simulations in the sciences and social sciences (pp. 5–32). Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
  27. Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Epstein, J. M., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  29. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4), 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Filar, J. A., & Petrosjan, L. A. (2000). Dynamic cooperative games. International Game Theory Review, 2(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  32. Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.Google Scholar
  33. Forrester, J. W. (1973). World dynamics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.Google Scholar
  34. Foss, N. J. (2000). Austrian economics and game theory: A stocktaking and an evaluation. The Review of Austrian Economics, 13(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Foss, N. J. (2011). Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1413–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gans, J. S., & Ryall, M. D. (2015). The value capture model: A strategic management review. Retrieved from
  39. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. A. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gloria-Palermo, S. (2002). Modern Austrian economics. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
  41. Grahovac, J., & Miller, D. J. (2009). Competitive advantage and performance: The impact of value creation and costliness of imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1192–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hart, S., & Kurz, M. (1983). Endogenous formation of coalitions. Econometrica, 51(4), 1047–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Helfat, C. E. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keyhani, M., & Lévesque, M. (2014). Returns to bargaining power in the market process. Paper presented at the INFORMS annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Keyhani, M., & Lévesque, M. (2015, in press). The equilibrating and disequilibrating effects of entrepreneurship: Revisiting the central premises. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), xx–xxx.Google Scholar
  48. Keyhani, M., Lévesque, M., & Madhok, A. (2015). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial rents: A simulation of the market process. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.Google Scholar
  50. Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klusch, M., & Gerber, A. (2002). Dynamic coalition formation among rational agents. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17(3), 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Konishi, H., & Ray, D. (2003). Coalition formation as a dynamic process. Journal of Economic Theory, 110(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game theory and economic modelling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Law, A. M., & Kelton, W. D. (2000). Simulation modeling and analysis (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. (2007). The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 667–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levinthal, D. A., & Posen, H. E. (2007). Myopia of selection: Does organizational adaptation limit the efficacy of population selection? Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 586–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (2003a). A bargaining perspective on resource advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1069–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (2003b). The payments perspective: Micro-foundations of resource analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Littlechild, S. C. (1979a). An application of the entrepreneurial theory of games. In S. J. Brams, A. Schotter, & G. Schwödiauer (Eds.), Applied game theory (pp. 313–324). Würzburg: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Littlechild, S. C. (1979b). An entrepreneurial theory of games. Metroeconomica, 31(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Littlechild, S. C. (1982). Equilibrium and the market process. In I. M. Kirzner (Ed.), Method, process, and Austrian Economics: Essays in honor of Ludwig von Mises (pp. 85–100). Toronto, ON: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  64. Littlechild, S. C. (1986). Three types of market process. In R. N. Langlois (Ed.), Economics as a process: Essays in the new institutional economics (pp. 27–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Littlechild, S. C., & Owen, G. (1980). An Austrian model of the entrepreneurial market process. Journal of Economic Theory, 23(3), 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. López-Paredes, A., Edmonds, B., & Klugl, F. (2012). Agent based simulation of complex social systems [Special issue]. Simulation, 88(1), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. MacDonald, G., & Ryall, M. D. (2004). How do value creation and competition determine whether a firm appropriates value? Management Science, 50(10), 1319–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Makowski, L., & Ostroy, J. M. (2001). Perfect competition and the creativity of the market. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 479–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mathews, J. A. (2006). Strategizing, disequilibrium, and profit. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  71. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Moulin, H. (2002). An appraisal of cooperative game theory. In C. Schmidt (Ed.), Game theory and economic analysis: A quiet revolution in economics (pp. 74–89). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Page, S. E., & Ryall, M. (1998). Does strategy need computer experimentation? In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), Disciplinary roots of strategic management research (Vol. 15, pp. 299–326). London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  74. Reid, G. C. (1993). The survival of small business enterprise (Discussion paper series No. 9309). University of St. Andrews, Department of Economics, Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm.Google Scholar
  75. Rivkin, J. W. (2000). Imitation of complex strategies. Management Science, 46(6), 824–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3), 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ryall, M. D. (2013). The new dynamics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 80–87.Google Scholar
  78. Ryall, M. D., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Brokers and competitive advantage. Management Science, 53(4), 566–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  82. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science, 16(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sirmon, D. G., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2008). Resource management in dyadic competitive rivalry: The effects of resource bundling and deployment. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 919–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 985–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. A. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  88. White, L. H. (1984). The methodology of the Austrian school economists. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute of Auburn University.Google Scholar
  89. Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 159–184). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  90. Yang, S.-J. S., & Chandra, Y. (2013). Growing artificial entrepreneurs: Advancing entrepreneurship research using agent-based simulation approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19(2), 210–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haskayne School of BusinessUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations