This paper explores the basic elements of Agent-Based Models and the implications of this simulation approach for public administration research. The general principles of agent-based modeling are examined with particular attention to the elements of simple rules and emergent behavior. Graphical representations from an agent-based model are provided. Issues of the appropriate application of agent-based modeling are presented. The notion of bureaucracy from the “bottom-up”, or generative public administration, is offered as a means for understanding how the actions of various heterogeneous agents may generate emergent structure and organization. Agent-based modeling provides a novel means for exploring complexity while adding considerable insight into assumptions of rationality and cooperation among human agents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AxelrodRobert (1997). The Complexity Of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models Of Competition And Collaboration.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AxtellRobert (2000). “Why Agents? On the Varied Motivations for Agent Computing in the Social Sciences.”Center On Social And Economic Dynamics, working paper no. 17 (November 2000) Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
3.
CastiJohn (1997). Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation Is Changing The Frontiers Of Science.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
4.
CedermanLars-Erik (1997). Emergent Actors In World Politics: How States And Nations Develop And Dissolve.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
ComfortLouise (1999). Shared Risk: Complex Systems In Seismic Response. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
ComfortLouise (2000). “Nonlinear Dynamics in Disaster Response: The Northridge California Earthquake, January 17, 1994.” In Nonlinear Dynamics, Complexity And Public Policy, ElliottE. and KielL.D. (Eds.): 139–152, Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
7.
DemingW. Edwards (1993). The New Economics.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
DownsAnthony (1966). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
9.
EpsteinJoshua M. (1999). “Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science.” Complexity4 (5): 41–60.
10.
EpsteinJoshua M and RobertAxtell (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science From The Bottom Up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
ElliotEuel and KielL. Douglas, (2000). Nonlinear Dynamics, Complexity And Public Policy.Commack, NY: Commack, NY.
12.
EveRaymond, SaraHorsfall and MaryLee (1997). Chaos, Complexity And Sociology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13.
ForresterJay W. (1969) Urban Dynamics.Cambrideg, MA: MIT Press.
14.
GilbertNigel and JimDoran (Eds.) (1994). Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation Of Social Phenomena. London: UCL Press.
15.
GillJeff and KennethJ. Meier (2000). “Public Administration Research and Practice: A Methodological Manifesto.” Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory10 (1): 157–199.
16.
HartvigsenG.WordenL. and LevinS.A. (2000). ‘Global Cooperation Achieved Through Small Behavioral Changes Among Strangers.” Complexity5 (3): 14–19.
17.
HollandJohn H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Helix Books.
18.
Journal Of Artificial Societies And Social Simulation.An interdisciplinary journal for the exploration and understanding of social processes by means of computer simulation.NigelGilbert (ed.). University of Surrey: UK.
19.
KielL. Douglas. (1989). “Nonequlibrium Theory and Its Implications for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review49 (6): 544–551.
20.
KielL. Douglas (1994). Managing Chaos And Complexity In Government: A New Paradigm For Managing Change, Innovation And Organizational Renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
KielL. Douglas and BarrySeldon (1998). Measuring Temporal Complexity in the Environment: Nonlinearity and the Bounds of Rational Action.” American Review Of Public Administration28 (3): 246–265.
22.
LangtonChristopher (1989). “Artificial Life.” In Artificial Life. LangtonC.G. (ed.) SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, 1–47. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
23.
LissackMichael and HughGunz (2000). Managing Complexity In Organizations: A View In Many Directions. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
24.
MorcolGoktug and LindaDennard (Eds.). 2000. New Sciences For Public Administration And Policy: Connections And Reflections. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
25.
O'TooleLawrence and KennethJ. Meier (1999). “Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context.” Journal Of Public Administration Theory And Practice9 (3): 505–526.
26.
PatrickSteven, PatriciaM. Dorman and RobertL. Marsh (1999). “Simulating Correctional Disturbances: The Application of Organization Control Theory to Correctional Organizations Via Computer Simulation.” Journal Of Artificial Societies And Social Simulation2 (1): 1–21.
27.
PrietulaMichael J., KathleenM. Carley and LesGasser (1998). Simulating Organizations:Computational Models Of Institutions And Groups.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
RichardsonGeorge P. (1996). Modeling For Management: Simulation In Support Of Systems Thinking.
29.
SchellingThomas (1978). Micromotives And Macrobehavior. New York: Norton.
30.
TopaG. (1997). “Social Interactions, Local Spillovers and Unemployment.” Manuscript, Department of Economics, New York University.
