IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2083-d747571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nanoeconomics of Households in Lockdown Using Agent Models during COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Cifuentes-Faura

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain)

  • Renaud Di Francesco

    (The Institution of Engineering and Technology, London WC2E 7, UK)

Abstract

The world is experiencing a global pandemic with COVID-19, for which few measures have proven their efficiency. Prevention through lockdown belongs to the portfolio of Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention (NPI). The implementation of a lockdown comes with a potential health care benefit balanced with an economic and human cost: people are constrained to stay in their homes. Households hence have to live together in what we call “zero-space”, which means within the walls of their flat or house. The loss of “space-domain” freedom, preventing them to move in “free” space is accompanied by a continued “time-domain” freedom with the possibility to allocate their time, and what they do with it, within the location they are not permitted to leave (with very defined exceptions). We study the microeconomics framework in such a setting, starting from the rules shaping such a “nano-market” with very few agents (the members of the household), and its consequence for nano-economic interaction. Since the behaviour of the agents is hyperconstrained in the space domain and relatively free in the time domain, behavioral economics is used to describe decisions made in the home, for the actions remaining possible during lockdown. A minimal set of rules is introduced and illustrated to describe efficiently the agents at play in this new and particular context, which has been replicated worldwide during the pandemic. Hypotheses for this model are presented and discussed, so as to allow future variations and adaptations for other specific cases with different options chosen. Such hypotheses concern agents, their interests, behaviours, and the equivalent of non-financial “nano-market transactions and contracts”.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Cifuentes-Faura & Renaud Di Francesco, 2022. "Nanoeconomics of Households in Lockdown Using Agent Models during COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2083-:d:747571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2083/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2083/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2020. "The COVID-19 Pandemic [Pandémie De Covid-19]," World Bank Publications - Reports 33696, The World Bank Group.
    2. Javier Cifuentes-Faura, 2020. "The Importance of Behavioral Economics during COVID-19," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 12(3), pages 70-74.
    3. Hoppe, Eva I. & Kusterer, David J., 2011. "Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 97-100, February.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    5. David Genesove & Christopher Mayer, 2001. "Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence from the Housing Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1233-1260.
    6. Javier Cifuentes-Faura, 2021. "Analysis of containment measures and economic policies arising from COVID-19 in the European Union," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 242-255, March.
    7. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2007. "The road not taken: how psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(516), pages 146-173, January.
    8. Tali Sharot & Alison M. Riccardi & Candace M. Raio & Elizabeth A. Phelps, 2007. "Neural mechanisms mediating optimism bias," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7166), pages 102-105, November.
    9. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2015. "Present Bias: Lessons Learned and to Be Learned," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 273-279, May.
    10. Pareto, Vilfredo, 2014. "Manual of Political Economy: A Critical and Variorum Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199607952 edited by Montesano, Aldo & Zanni, Alberto & Bruni, Luigino & Chipman, John S. & McLure, Michael.
    11. Richard H. Thaler, 2018. "From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1265-1287, June.
    12. Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J. J. & Willham, Cynthia Fobian, 1991. "The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 147-168, February.
    13. World Bank, 2020. "Remote Learning and COVID-19," World Bank Publications - Reports 33479, The World Bank Group.
    14. Moslem Soofi & Farid Najafi & Behzad Karami-Matin, 2020. "Using Insights from Behavioral Economics to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 345-350, June.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Choices, Values, and Frames," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 16, pages 269-278, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Javier Cifuentes-Faura & Renaud Francesco, 2022. "Microeconomics of intertemporal choice in zero-space during Covid-19: a behavioral economics perspective," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(4), pages 559-563, June.
    2. Tyran, Jean-Robert & Stephens, Thomas A, 2012. "?At least I didn?t lose money? Nominal Loss Aversion Shapes Evaluations of Housing Transactions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9198, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Andrew Pendleton & Ben Lupton & Andrew Rowe & Richard Whittle, 2019. "Back to the Shop Floor: Behavioural Insights from Workplace Sociology," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 33(6), pages 1039-1057, December.
    4. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    6. Lepinteur, Anthony & Waltl, Sofie R., 2020. "Tracking Owners' Sentiments: Subjective Home Values, Expectations and House Price Dynamics," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 299, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    7. David Card & Gordon B. Dahl, 2011. "Family Violence and Football: The Effect of Unexpected Emotional Cues on Violent Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 103-143.
    8. Sivan Frenkel & Yuval Heller & Roee Teper, 2018. "The Endowment Effect As Blessing," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1159-1186, August.
    9. Edwards, José, 2017. "Journal of the History of Economic Thought preprints - Harry Helson’s Adaptation-Level Theory, Happiness Treadmills, and Behavioral Economics," SocArXiv 6cvbh, Center for Open Science.
    10. Oded Galor & Viacheslav Savitskiy, 2018. "Climatic Roots of Loss Aversion," NBER Working Papers 25273, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Goulas, Sofoklis & Griselda, Silvia & Megalokonomou, Rigissa, 2023. "Compulsory class attendance versus autonomy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 935-981.
    12. Alex Dickson & Colin Jennings & Gary Koop, 2016. "Domestic Violence and Football in Glasgow: Are Reference Points Relevant?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Daniele SCHILIRÒ, 2013. "Bounded Rationality: Psychology, Economics And The Financial Crises," Theoretical and Practical Research in the Economic Fields, ASERS Publishing, vol. 4(1), pages 97-108.
    14. Roee Teper, 2014. "The Endowment Effect as a Blessing," Working Paper 5862, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    15. Frenkel, Sivan & Heller, Yuval & Teper, Roee, 2012. "Endowment as a blessing," MPRA Paper 39430, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Apr 2012.
    16. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2020. "Urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights: A commentary and research agenda," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(9), pages 1994-2007, July.
    17. Berg, Nathan, 2010. "Behavioral Economics," MPRA Paper 26587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ahrens, Steffen & Pirschel, Inske & Snower, Dennis J., 2017. "A theory of price adjustment under loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 78-95.
    19. Liyan Yang, 2019. "Loss Aversion in Financial Markets," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 4(1), pages 119-137, November.
    20. Ruggeri, Kai & Alí, Sonia & Berge, Mari Louise & Bertoldo, Giulia & Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna & Bjørndal, Ludvig Daae & Davison, Clair & Demić, Emir & Esteban Serna, Celia & Friedemann, Maja, 2020. "Not lost in translation: Successfully replicating Prospect Theory in 19 countries," OSF Preprints 2nyd6, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2083-:d:747571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.