Macroeconomic Policy effects on development transition – Views from Agent based model

Fadiran, Gideon and Fadiran, David and Ibn-Mohammed, Taofeeq (2017): Macroeconomic Policy effects on development transition – Views from Agent based model.

Abstract

Assessing the impact of a policy before implementation has often been a difficult feat to achieve, both at the macroeconomic and microeconomic levels. This challenge becomes even more daunting in the context of a developing country and has encouraged enormous amount of research over an extended period of time using different models. Traditional models for assessing the impact of policy implementation are fragmented given the assumption that factors affecting such policies are homogeneous whilst neglecting the interactions between various markets. Agent-based modelling can overcome this limitation given its capability to provide a micro-founded macroeconomic analysis of policy, within a variety of economic conditions and policy objectives to facilitate the understanding of the observed response. Against this backdrop, the current work adopts an agent based framework to investigate three distinct policies that have been employed by some advanced countries towards achieving sustainable development goals. This is carried out to derive lessons and explore opportunities for enhancing policy implementation in developing countries. Agent representation involve decisions by involve manufacturers, households (final goods consumers), banks (loan issues & bankruptcy warning), central bank (Basel monitor & monetary policy activity), government (fiscal policy role) and singular energy market supplier, which enables consideration of: the impact of unemployment benefits on the labour market; the impact of capital investment subsidy on investment levels; and the impact of energy taxes (in the form of an increase in the energy cost structure) on a developing country’s macroeconomic system. Results shows that an increase in unemployment benefits led to improvements in the labour market and reduction in wage margin, with a limitation threshold of 50%. Additionally, it was observed that the economy becomes more sensitive to energy tax due to higher unemployment benefits, although the diminishing nature of the relationship was quite noticeable.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Development policies; Incentives & unemployment benefit; Investment incentives; Production efficiency; Development economy; Agent based model
• Subjects: E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E22 - Investment ; Capital ; Intangible Capital ; Capacity; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy > E24 - Employment ; Unemployment ; Wages ; Intergenerational Income Distribution ; Aggregate Human Capital ; Aggregate Labor Productivity; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E6 - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O11 - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O15 - Human Resources ; Human Development ; Income Distribution ; Migration; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity

References

1. Assembly, U.G., Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. New York: United Nations, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc. asp, 2015.

2. Farmer, J.D. and D. Foley, The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature, 2009. 460(7256): p. 685-686.

3. Macal, C.M. and M.J. North, Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of simulation, 2010. 4(3): p. 151-162.

4. Snape, J.R., P.J. Boait, and R. Rylatt, Will domestic consumers take up the renewable heat incentive? An analysis of the barriers to heat pump adoption using agent-based modelling. Energy Policy, 2015. 85: p. 32-38.

5. Epstein, J.M., Agent‐based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 1999. 4(5): p. 41-60.

6. Epstein, J.M. and R. Axtell, Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. 1996: Brookings Institution Press.

7. Tesfatsion, L. Agent-based computational economics: A brief guide to the literature. in Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, Volume 1, Fitzroy-Dearborn. 2001. Citeseer.

8. Dawid, H., et al., Agent-based macroeconomic modeling and policy analysis: The eurace@ unibi model. 2014.

9. Cincotti, S., M. Raberto, and A. Teglio, Credit money and macroeconomic instability in the agent-based model and simulator Eurace. 2010.

10. Dawid, H., et al., The eurace@unibi model: An agent-based macroeconomic model for economic policy analysis. 2012.

11. Arni, P., R. Lalive, and J.C. Van Ours, How effective are unemployment benefit sanctions? Looking beyond unemployment exit. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2013. 28(7): p. 1153-1178.

12. Barro, R., The folly of subsidizing unemployment. Wall Street Journal, 2010. 30.

13. Mitman, K. and S. Rabinovich, Do Unemployment Benefit Extensions Explain the Emergence of Jobless Recoveries? Unpublished manuscript, 2014.

14. Solon, G., Labor supply effects of extended unemployment benefits. The Journal of Human Resources, 1979. 14(2): p. 247-255.

15. Bergström, F., Capital subsidies and the performance of firms. Small Business Economics, 2000. 14(3): p. 183-193.

16. Tzelepis, D. and D. Skuras, The effects of regional capital subsidies on firm performance: an empirical study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2004. 11(1): p. 121-129.

17. Fölster, S., Do subsidies to cooperative R & D actually stimulate R & D investment and cooperation? Research Policy, 1995. 24(3): p. 403-417.

18. González, X. and C. Pazó, Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Research Policy, 2008. 37(3): p. 371-389.

19. Hussinger, K., R&D and subsidies at the firm level: An application of parametric and semiparametric two‐step selection models. Journal of applied econometrics, 2008. 23(6): p. 729-747.

20. Lach, S., Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D? Evidence from Israel. The journal of industrial economics, 2002. 50(4): p. 369-390.

21. Ginneken, W., Extending social security: Policies for developing countries. International Labour Review, 2003. 142(3): p. 277-294.

22. Wibbels, E. and J.S. Ahlquist, Development, trade, and social insurance. International Studies Quarterly, 2011. 55(1): p. 125-149.

23. Oketch, M.O., Determinants of human capital formation and economic growth of African countries. Economics of Education Review, 2006. 25(5): p. 554-564.

24. Onaolapo, A.A. and S.O. Kajola, Capital structure and firm performance: evidence from Nigeria. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 2010. 25: p. 70-82.

25. Maina, L. and M. Ishmail, Capital structure and financial performance in Kenya: Evidence from firms listed at the Nairobi Securities Exchange. International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 2014. 1(11): p. 209-223.

26. Jayne, T. and S. Rashid, Input subsidy programs in sub‐Saharan Africa: a synthesis of recent evidence. Agricultural economics, 2013. 44(6): p. 547-562.

27. Collins, A. and J. Snowball, Transformation, job creation and subsidies to creative industries: the case of South Africa’s film and television sector. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2015. 21(1): p. 41-59.

28. Wentzel, M.S.I. and M. Steyn, Investment promotion in the South African manufacturing industry: incentive comparisons with Malaysia and Singapore. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 2014. 17(3): p. 319-335.

29. Flatters, F., The economics of MIDP and the South African motor industry. 2005: Trade and Industrial Policies Strategies.

30. Kaplan, D. Manufacturing performance and policy in South Africa–A review. in TIPS/DPRU Forum. 2003.

31. Beg, N., et al., Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Climate policy, 2002. 2(2-3): p. 129-144.

32. Grindle, M.S., Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 2004. 17(4): p. 525-548.

33. Nickell, S., Unemployment and labor market rigidities: Europe versus North America. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1997. 11(3): p. 55-74.

34. Bronzini, R. and G. de Blasio, Evaluating the impact of investment incentives: The case of Italy's Law 488/1992. Journal of urban Economics, 2006. 60(2): p. 327-349.

35. Malleson, N., A. Heppenstall, and L. See, Crime reduction through simulation: An agent-based model of burglary. Computers, environment and urban systems, 2010. 34(3): p. 236-250.

36. Bloomquist, K.M., A comparison of agent-based models of income tax evasion. Social Science Computer Review, 2006. 24(4): p. 411-425.

37. Robinson, D.T., et al., Comparison of empirical methods for building agent-based models in land use science. Journal of Land Use Science, 2007. 2(1): p. 31-55.

38. d’Aquino, P., et al. Agent-based models of land-use and land-cover change. in Proc. of an International Workshop. 2002. Citeseer.

39. Valbuena, D., P.H. Verburg, and A.K. Bregt, A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land-use research. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2008. 128(1): p. 27-36.

40. Heckbert, S., T. Baynes, and A. Reeson, Agent‐based modeling in ecological economics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2010. 1185(1): p. 39-53.

41. Janssen, M.A., Agent-based modelling. Modelling in ecological economics, 2005: p. 155-172.

42. Ziervogel, G., et al., Agent-based social simulation: a method for assessing the impact of seasonal climate forecast applications among smallholder farmers. Agricultural Systems, 2005. 83(1): p. 1-26.

43. Stern, P.C., Individual and household interactions with energy systems: toward integrated understanding. Energy Research & Social Science, 2014. 1: p. 41-48.

44. Fouquet, R., Lessons from energy history for climate policy: Technological change, demand and economic development. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016. 22: p. 79-93.

45. Gottschalk, R., Institutional Challenges for Effective Banking Regulation and Supervision in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2014.

46. Nyantakyi, E.B. and J. Munemo. Technology Gap, Imported Capital Goods and Productivity of Manufacturing Plants in Sub-Saharan Africa. in African Economic Conference. 2014.

47. Dawid, H., et al., Eurace@ unibi model v1. 0 user manual. 2011.

48. Bazilian, M., S. Nakhooda, and T. Van de Graaf, Energy governance and poverty. Energy Research & Social Science, 2014. 1: p. 217-225.

49. Nicholson, W. and K. Needels, Unemployment insurance: Strengthening the relationship between theory and policy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2006. 20(3): p. 47-70.

50. Kroft, K. and M.J. Notowidigdo, Should unemployment insurance vary with the unemployment rate? Theory and evidence. 2011, National Bureau of Economic Research.

51. Wolff, G.B. and V. Reinthaler, The effectiveness of subsidies revisited: Accounting for wage and employment effects in business R&D. Research Policy, 2008. 37(8): p. 1403-1412.