SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Economic agents and social institutions: A behavioral interaction model


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 21 (no. 4),

The study aims to develop an agent-based model that reflects the interaction of economic agents with the system of economic institutions of society. The interaction of agents with institutions is considered a twoway process of establishing social norms corresponding to the mentality of agents and changing the valuepsychological structure of the mentality of agents under existing institutions. It is assumed that each agent finds himself in various situations of choice during his life activity in which he can adhere to one or another line (pattern) of behavior. On the one hand, his behavior is influenced by the initial value attitudes, and on the other hand, by the institutional norms that apply in this situation. Economic utility (benefit) plays an essential role in this process, influencing the agent’s decision regarding following the dominant institutions in society and forcing him to risk his own reputation. The proposed system of coordinates “mentality – institutions” gives us a new description of the development of civil society in the country. In a developed society, the mentality of people and formal institutions do not contradict each other and are in balance (harmonious state). At the other extreme, there is a situation where each agent pursues only his interests. Various intermediate (transitional) configurations are also possible, where there is a struggle between formal and informal institutions and individual, group, and public interests. The result of the study is an agent-based model implemented on experimental data, which makes it possible to assess the degree of mutual influence of the mentality and civil society institutions and formulate conditional recommendations for bodies developing the country’s social and economic policies.
Citation: Kleiner G.B., Rybachuk M.A., Ushakov D.V. (2023). Economic agents and social institutions: A behavioral interaction model. Terra Economicus 21(4), 55–68 (in Russian). DOI: 10.18522/2073- 6606-2023-21-4-55-68
Acknowledgment: The study is supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (project “Latest Trends in the Development of Human and Social Sciences in the Context of Digitalization and New Social Problems and Threats: An Interdisciplinary Approach”, Agreement № 075-15-2020-798).


Keywords: agent-based model; big five personality traits; mentality; informal institutions; formal institutions; calculation experiment

JEL codes: D01, D02, C61, C63

References:
  • Брагин А.В., Бахтизин А.Р. (2023). Особенности реализации больших экономических моделей. π-Economy 16(3), 107–122. [Bragin, A., Bakhtizin, A. (2023). Implementation features of large economic models. π-Economy 16(3), 107–122 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.18721/JE.16307
  • Журавлев А.Л., Ушаков Д.В., Юревич А.В. (2013). Перспективы психологии в решении задач российского общества. Часть III. На пути к технологиям согласования социальных институтов и менталитета. Психологический журнал 34(6), 5–25. [Zhuravlev, A., Ushakov, D., Yurevich, A. (2013). Prospects of psychology on Russian society problem solving. Part III. Interaction between social institutes and mentality: the ways of optimization. Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal 34(6), 5–25 (in Russian)].
  • Журавлев А.Л., Ушаков Д.В., Юревич А.В. (2017). Менталитет, общество и психосоциальный человек (ответ участникам дискуссии). Психологический журнал 38(1), 107–112. [Zhuravlev, A., Ushakov, D., Yurevich, A. (2017). Mentality, society and “homo psychosocialis” (response to the participants of the discussion). Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 38(1), 107–112 (in Russian)].
  • Клейнер Г.Б., Рыбачук М.А., Ушаков Д.В. (2019). Агент-ориентированная модель профессиональной экспертизы и принятия решений о поддержке индивидуальных общественно значимых инициатив.Terra Economicus 17(2), 23–39. [Kleiner, G., Rybachuk, M., Ushakov, D. (2019). Agent-oriented model of professional expertise and decision making on individual public significant initiatives support. Terra Economicus 17(2), 23–39 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-17-2-23-39
  • Клейнер Г.Б., Рыбачук М.А., Ушаков Д.В. (2021). Менталитет экономических агентов и институциональные изменения: в поисках модели равновесия. Terra Economicus 19(4), 6–20.[Kleiner, G., Rybachuk, M., Ushakov, D. (2021). The mentality of economic agents and institutional change: In search of an equilibrium model. Terra Economicus 19(4), 6–20 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2021-19-4-6-20
  • Клейнер Г.Б., Рыбачук М.А. (2019). Системная сбалансированность экономики России: региональный разрез. Экономика региона 15(2), 309–323. [Kleiner, G., Rybachuk, M. (2019). System balance of the Russian economy: Regional perspective. Economy of Regions 15(2), 309–323(in Russian)]. DOI: 10.17059/2019-2-1
  • Клейнер Г.Б. (2013). Системная экономика как платформа развития современной экономической теории. Вопросы экономики (6), 4–28. [Kleiner, G. (2013). System economics as a platform for development of modern economic theory. Voprosy Ekonomiki (6), 4–28 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2013-6-4-28
  • Князев Г.Г., Митрофанова Л.Г., Бочаров А.В. (2010). Валидизация русскоязычной версии опросника Л. Голдберга «Маркеры факторов “Большой пятерки”». Психологический журнал 31(5), 100–110. [Knyazev, G., Mitrofanova, L., Bocharov, A. (2010). Validization of Russian version of Goldberg’s “Big-Five factor markers” inventory. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 31(5), 100–110 (in Russian)].
  • Кобылко А.А. (2016). Современные операторы связи: исследование с позиции системной экономической теории. Экономическая наука современной России 2(73), 118–124. [Kobylko, A. (2016). Modern telecommunication operators: A study from the point of view of the system economic theory. Economics of Contemporary Russia 2(73), 118–124 (in Russian)].
  • Латынов В.В. (2021). Проблемы и перспективы применения агент-ориентированного моделирования в психологии воздействия. Институт психологии Российской академии наук. Организационная психология и психология труда 6(1), 116–139. [Latinov, V. (2021). Problems and prospects for application of agent-based modelling in the psychology of influence. Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Organizational Psychology and Psychology of Labor 6(1), 116–139 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.38098/ipran.opwp.2021.18.1.006
  • Макаров В.Л., Бахтизин А.Р. (2009). Новый инструментарий в общественных науках – агент-ориентированные модели: общее описание и конкретные примеры. Экономика и управление(12), 13–25. [Makarov, V., Bakhtizin, A. (2009). New tools in social sciences – Agent-oriented models: General description and specific examples. Economy and Management (12), 13–25 (in Russian)].
  • Макаров В.Л., Бахтизин А.Р., Сушко Е.Д. (2016). Агент-ориентированные модели как инструмент апробации управленческих решений. Управленческое консультирование (12), 16–25. [Makarov, V., Bakhtizin, A., Sushko, E. (2016). Agent-based models as a means of testing of management solutions. Administrative Consulting (12), 16–25 (in Russian)].
  • Макаров В.Л., Бахтизин А.Р., Сушко Е.Д. (2017). Регулирование промышленных выбросов на основе агент-ориентированного подхода. Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз 10(6), 42–58. [Makarov, V., Bakhtizin, A., Sushko, E. (2017). Regulation of industrial emissions based on the agent-based approach. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast 10(6), 42–58 (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2017.6.54.3
  • Малых С.Б., Тихомирова Т.Н. (2015). Личностные черты и интеллект: взаимосвязи и их природа. Вопросы психологии (2), 149–160. [Malykh, S., Tikhomirova, T. (2015). Personality traits and intelligence: The interrelationships and their etiology. Voprosy Psikhologii (2), 149–160 (in Russian)].
  • Ушаков Д.В. (2020). Менталитет и социально-экономические достижения стран. Вестник Российской академии наук 90(3), 224–231. [Ushakov, D. (2020). Mentality and the socioeconomic achievements of countries. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences 90(2), 142–148]. DOI: 10.31857/S086958732003024X
  • Хивинцев М.А., Акопов А.С. (2014). Применение многоагентного генетического алгоритма для поиска оптимальных стратегических и оперативных решений. Бизнес-информатика (1), 23–33. [Khivintcev, M., Akopov, A. (2014). Application of multi-agent genetic algorithm for search of optimum strategic and operational decisions. Business Informatics (1), 23–33 (in Russian)].
  • Allais, M. (1990). Allais Paradox. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds.) The New Palgrave: Utility and Probability. New York: Macmillan Press, pp. 3–9. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_2
  • Axelrod, R. (2006). Agent-based modeling as a bridge between disciplines. In: Tesfatsion, L., Judd, K.L. (eds.) Handbook of Computational Economics. Elsevier: Vol. 2, ch. 33, 1565–1584. DOI: 10.1016/S1574-0021(05)02033-2
  • Becker, G. (1993). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(3), 7280–7287. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.082080899
  • Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16), 386–405. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x
  • Digman, J. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(6), 1246. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
  • Dosi G., Roventini A. (2019). More is different... and complex! The case for agent-based macroeconomics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 29, 1–37. DOI: 10.1007/s00191-019-00609-y
  • Heath, B., Hill, R., Ciarallo, F. (2009). A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 12(4), 9. https://www.jasss.org/12/4/9.html
  • Hughes, H.P., Clegg, C.W., Robinson, M.A., Crowder, R.M. (2012). Agent-based modelling and simulation: The potential contribution to organizational psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85(3), 487–502. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02053.x
  • Jackson, J.C., Rand, D., Lewis, K., Norton, M.I., Gray, K. (2017). Agent-based modeling: A guide for social psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(4), 387–395. DOI: 10.1177/1948550617691100
  • Kleiner, G., Rybachuk, M., Ushakov, D. (2023). Behavioral Model of Interaction Between Economic Agents and the Institutional Environment. In: Agarwal, N., Kleiner, G., Sakalauskas, L. (eds.) Modeling and Simulation of Social-Behavioral Phenomena in Creative Societies. MSBC 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1717. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-33728-4_4
  • Marshall, A. (1919). Industry and Trade: A Study of Industrial Technique and Business Organization; and of the Influences on the Conditions of Various Classes and Nations. Macmillan.
  • Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1973). Toward an evolutionary theory of economic capabilities. The American Economic Review 63(2), 440–449.
  • Roozmand, O., Ghasem-Aghaee, N., Hofstede, G., Nematbakhsh, M., Baraani, A., Verwaart, T. (2011). Agent-based modeling of consumer decision making process based on power distance and personality. Knowledge-Based Systems 24(7), 1075–1095. DOI: 10.1016/j.knosys.2011.05.001
  • Saucier, G., Goldberg, L. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality 66, 495–524. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6494.00022
  • Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1), 99–118.
  • Smith, E., Conrey, F. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review 11(1), 87–104. DOI: 10.1177/1088868306294789
  • Thaler, R. (2000). From homo economicus to homo sapiens. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(1), 133–141. DOI: 10.1257/jep.14.1.133
  • Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124-1131. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  • Yin, X., Wang, H., Yin, P., & Zhu, H. (2019). Agent-based opinion formation modeling in social network: A perspective of social psychology. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 532, 121786. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.121786
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606