Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Agent-Based Computational Economics

  • Moshe LevyEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_6-7

Definition of the Subject

Mainstream economic models typically make the assumption that an entire group of agents, e.g., “investors,” can be modeled with a single “rational representative agent.” While this assumption has proven extremely useful in advancing the science of economics by yielding 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 representative agent.” Modeling and simulating the behavior of each agent and the interaction among agents agent-based simulation allows us to investigate the dynamics of complex economic systems with many heterogeneous and not necessarily fully rational agents.

The agent-based simulation approach allows economists to...


microscopic simulation agent-based simulation financial markets bounded rationality heterogeneous expectations 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


Primary Literature

  1. Admati A, Pfleiderer P (1988) A theory of intraday patterns: volume and price variability. Rev Financ Stud 1:3–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur WB (1994) Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality (The El Farol problem). Am Econ Rev 84:406–411Google 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 CityGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock WA, Hommes CA (1998) Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model. J Econ Dyn Control 22:1235–1274MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Egenter E, Lux T, Stauffer D (1999) Finite size effects in Monte Carlo simulations of two stock market models. Phys A 268:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein JM, Axtell RL (1996) Complex adaptive systems. In: Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. MIT Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Fama E, French K (1988) Permanent and temporary components of stock prices. J Polit Econ 96:246–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friend I, Blume ME (1975) The demand for risky assets. Am Econ Rev 65:900–922Google Scholar
  9. Gordon J, Paradis GE, Rorke CH (1972) Experimental evidence on alternative portfolio decision rules. Am Econ Rev 62(1):107–118Google Scholar
  10. Grossman S, Stiglitz J (1980) On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. Am Econ Rev 70:393–408Google Scholar
  11. Hellthaler T (1995) The influence of investor number on a microscopic market. Int J Mod Phys C 6:845–852CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommes CH (2002) Modeling the stylized facts in finance through simple nonlinear adaptive systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:7221–7228CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. Jegadeesh N, Titman S (1993) Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. J Finance 48:65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karpoff J (1987) The relationship between price changes and trading volume: a survey. J Finance Quant Anal 22:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim GW, Markowitz HM (1989) Investment rules, margin, and market volatility. J Portf Manage 16:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirman AP (1992) Whom or what does the representative agent represent? J Econ Perspect 6:117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohl R (1997) The influence of the number of different stocks on the Levy, Levy Solomon model. Int J Mod Phys C 8:1309–1316CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroll Y, Levy H, Rapoport A (1988) Experimental tests of the separation theorem and the capital asset pricing model. Am Econ Rev 78:500–519Google Scholar
  19. LeBaron B (2000) Agent-based computational finance: suggested readings and early research. J Econ Dyn Control 24:679–702CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy H (1994) Absolute and relative risk aversion: an experimental study. J Risk Uncertain 8:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy H, Lim KC (1998) The economic significance of the cross-sectional autoregressive model: further analysis. Rev Quant Finance Account 11:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levy M, Levy H (1996) The danger of assuming homogeneous expectations. Finance Analyst J 52:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (1994) A microscopic model of the stock market: cycles, booms, and crashes. Econom Lett 45:103–111CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (2000) Microscopic simulation of financial markets. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  25. Levy M, Persky N, Solomon S (1996) The complex dyn of a simple stock market model. Int J High Speed Comput 8:93–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lux T (1995) Herd behaviour, bubbles and crashes. Econ J 105:881CrossRefGoogle 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 33:143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lux T, Marchesi M (1999) Volatility clustering in financial markets: a micro-simulation of interacting agents. Nature 397:498CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  29. Orcutt GH, Caldwell SB, Wertheimer R (1976) Policy exploration through microanalytic simulation. The Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer RG, Arthur WB, Holland JH, LeBaron B, Tayler P (1994) Artificial economic life: a simple model of a stock market. Phys D 75:264–274CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Poterba JM, Summers LH (1988) Mean reversion in stock returns: evidence and implications. J Finance Econ 22:27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samanidou E, Zschischang E, Stauffer D, Lux T (2007) Agent-based models of financial markets. Rep Prog Phys 70:409–450CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson PA (1989) The judgement of economic science on rational portfolio management: timing and long horizon effects. J Portf Manage 16:4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samuelson PA (1994) The long term case for equities and how it can be oversold. J Portf Manag 21:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sargent T (1993) Bounded rationality and macroeconomics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Schelling TC (1978) Micro motives and macro behavior. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Shiller RJ (1981) Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends? Am Econ Rev 71:421–436Google 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 2:83–94CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Tesfatsion L (2001) Special issue on agent-based computational economics. J Econ Dyn Control 25:281–293CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Tesfatsion L (2002) Agent-based computational economics: growing economies from the bottom up. Artif Life 8:55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thaler R (ed) (1993) Advances in behavioral finance. Russel Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Thaler R (1994) Quasi rational economics. Russel Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–480MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decision. J Bus 59(4):251–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Books and Reviews

  1. Anderson PW, Arrow J, Pines D (eds) (1988) The economy as an evolving complex system. Addison-Wesley, Redwood CityzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of conflict and cooperation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Moss de Oliveira S, de Oliveira H, Stauffer D (1999) Evolution, money, war and computers. BG Teubner, Stuttgart/LeipzigCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Solomon S (1995) The microscopic representation of complex macroscopic phenomena. In: Stauffer D (ed) Annu Rev Comput Phys II. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael