IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v594y2022ics0378437122000784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Authoritarianism vs. democracy: Simulating responses to disease outbreaks

Author

Listed:
  • Biondo, A.E.
  • Brosio, G.
  • Pluchino, A.
  • Zanola, R.

Abstract

Disease outbreaks force the governments to rapid decisions. However, the stream of decision-making could be costly in terms of the democratic representativeness. The goal of the paper is to investigate the trade-off between pluralism of preferences and the time required to approach a decision. To this aim we develop and test a modified version of the Hegselmann and Krause (2002) model to capture these two characteristics of the decisional process in different institutional contexts. Using a twofold geometrical institutional setting, we simulate the impact of disease outbreaks to check whether countries exhibit idiosyncratic effects, depending on their institutional frameworks. Main findings are that the degree of pluralism is not necessarily associated with worse performances in managing emergencies, provided that the political debate is mature enough.

Suggested Citation

  • Biondo, A.E. & Brosio, G. & Pluchino, A. & Zanola, R., 2022. "Authoritarianism vs. democracy: Simulating responses to disease outbreaks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 594(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:594:y:2022:i:c:s0378437122000784
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.126991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437122000784
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2022.126991?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morrow, James D. & De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 2008. "Retesting Selectorate Theory: Separating the Effects of W from Other Elements of Democracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 393-400, August.
    2. Scott R. Baker & Nicholas Bloom & Steven J. Davis & Stephen J. Terry, 2020. "COVID-Induced Economic Uncertainty," NBER Working Papers 26983, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    4. Stasavage, David, 2020. "Democracy, Autocracy, and Emergency Threats: Lessons for COVID-19 From the Last Thousand Years," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(S1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    6. A. Pluchino & V. Latora & A. Rapisarda, 2006. "Compromise and synchronization in opinion dynamics," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 169-176, March.
    7. Cassan, Guilhem & Steenvoort, Milan Van, 2021. "Political regime and COVID 19 death rate: ecient, biasing or simply dierent autocracies?," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 539, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    8. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253, December.
    9. Ida R. Hoos, 1971. "Information Systems and Public Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(10), pages 658-671, June.
    10. Santo Fortunato, 2005. "On The Consensus Threshold For The Opinion Dynamics Of Krause–Hegselmann," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 259-270.
    11. Ilan Alon & Matthew Farrell & Shaomin Li, 2020. "Regime Type and COVID-19 Response," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 9(3), pages 152-160, September.
    12. Santo Fortunato & Vito Latora & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2005. "Vector Opinion Dynamics In A Bounded Confidence Consensus Model," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1535-1551.
    13. José Cheibub & Jennifer Gandhi & James Vreeland, 2010. "Democracy and dictatorship revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 67-101, April.
    14. Guilhem Cassan & Milan Van Steenvoort, 2021. "Political Regime and COVID 19 death rate: efficient, biasing or simply different autocracies ?," Papers 2101.09960, arXiv.org.
    15. Linda V. Green & Peter J. Kolesar, 2004. "ANNIVERSARY ARTICLE: Improving Emergency Responsiveness with Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1001-1014, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giorgio Brosio, Riccardo Pelosi, Roberto Zanola, 2022. "Short-term exit from pandemic restrictions: did European countries' speed converge?," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 19(2), pages 145-159, December.

    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. Giorgio Brosio, Riccardo Pelosi, Roberto Zanola, 2022. "Short-term exit from pandemic restrictions: did European countries' speed converge?," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 19(2), pages 145-159, December.
    2. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    3. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    5. Flaminio Squazzoni, 2010. "The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 197-234.
    6. Wander Jager & Frédéric Amblard, 2005. "Uniformity, Bipolarization and Pluriformity Captured as Generic Stylized Behavior with an Agent-Based Simulation Model of Attitude Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 295-303, January.
    7. Gabbay, Michael, 2007. "The effects of nonlinear interactions and network structure in small group opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 118-126.
    8. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    9. Robinson, Scott A. & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Determinants of spatio-temporal patterns of energy technology adoption: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 273-284.
    10. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    11. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    12. Kai Fischbach & Johannes Marx & Tim Weitzel, 2021. "Agent-based modeling in social sciences," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1263-1270, November.
    13. Melatagia Yonta, Paulin & Ndoundam, René, 2009. "Opinion dynamics using majority functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 223-244, March.
    14. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Saintier, Nicolas & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2021. "An analytical formulation for multidimensional continuous opinion models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Hou, Jian & Li, Wenshan & Jiang, Mingyue, 2021. "Opinion dynamics in modified expressed and private model with bounded confidence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 574(C).
    16. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.
    17. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    18. Bruce Edmonds, 2020. "Co-developing beliefs and social influence networks—towards understanding socio-cognitive processes like Brexit," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 491-515, April.
    19. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Post-Print hal-00623966, HAL.
    20. Liu, Qipeng & Wang, Xiaofan, 2013. "Social learning with bounded confidence and heterogeneous agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(10), pages 2368-2374.

    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:eee:phsmap:v:594:y:2022:i:c:s0378437122000784. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    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.