IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/169847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sind Unternehmensplanspiele ein geeignetes Instrument zur Analyse begrenzter Rationalität und tatsächlichen Entscheidungsverhaltens?

Author

Listed:
  • Mußhoff, Oliver
  • Hirschauer, Norbert
  • Hengel, Philipp

Abstract

Politik hat vielfach zum Ziel, das Verhalten von Wirtschaftssubjekten durch eine Veränderung der Rahmenbedingungen zu steuern. Bei der Politikfolgenabschätzung müssen deshalb Voraussagen gemacht werden, wie Menschen sich an veränderte ökonomische Bedingungen anpassen. Eine wichtige Voraussetzung für eine aussagekräftige Politikfolgenabschätzung sind Kenntnisse darüber, in welchem Maße und warum Menschen begrenzt rational handeln. Als wenig aufwändige Möglichkeit, über die anekdotische Evidenz für „Verhaltensanomalien“ hinauszukommen, schlagen wir die Nutzung von Unternehmensplanspielen vor. Wir zeigen anhand eines Planspiels mit Investitions-, Finanzierungs- und Produktionsprogrammentscheidungen, wie man begrenzte Rationalität quantifizieren und in unvollständige Informationen und fehlende Informationsverarbeitungskapazitäten separieren kann. Die Auswertung der Spielergebnisse zeigt, dass die Entscheidungen stark durch begrenzte Rationalität beeinflusst wurden und dass unvollständige Informationen und fehlende Informationsverarbeitungskapazitäten relevante Ursachen für die manifestierte begrenzte Rationalität darstellen. Durch die Ergebnisse kann also die These, dass Entscheider begrenzt rational handeln, weiter gesichert werden. Dies verdeutlicht gleichzeitig die Gefahr, dass Maßnahmen für Akteure entworfen werden, die es in der Realität nicht gibt, wenn man die Politikfolgenabschätzung auf das Rational- Choice-Modell eines vollständig informierten und ausschließlich gewinnmaximierenden homo oeconomicus stützt. Regulatory policies often aim to steer the behaviour of economic agents by changing their framework conditions. Assessing the impact of such policies requires forecasts of how humans adapt to changes in their economic environment. A prerequisite for a meaningful policy impact analysis is a profound knowledge why and to what extent economic agents behave in a bounded rational way. We propose that business management games be used to contribute to a better understanding since they provide an inexpensive opportunity to reach beyond the existing anecdotic evidence of “behavioural anomalies”. Modifying an existing business management game, in which investment, financing and production decisions have to be made, we demonstrate how bounded rationality can be quantified and separated into its two components: incomplete information and limited cognitive abilities. The resulting data indicate that the decisions made by the participants of the game have been strongly influenced by bounded rationality. They also show that both incomplete information and limited cognitive abilities are relevant components of the bounded rationality that has been displayed by the players. Regulatory impact analysts who base their forecasts a priori on the standard rational choice assumption cause the risk of measures being designed for economic agents that do not exist in reality.

Suggested Citation

  • Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Hengel, Philipp, 2011. "Sind Unternehmensplanspiele ein geeignetes Instrument zur Analyse begrenzter Rationalität und tatsächlichen Entscheidungsverhaltens?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(03), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:169847
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.169847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/169847/files/2_Mu_hoff.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.169847?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
    2. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    3. Hudson, Darren, 2003. "Problem Solving and Hypothesis Testing Using Economic Experiments," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 337-347, August.
    4. Oliver Musshoff & Norbert Hirschauer, 2011. "A behavioral economic analysis of bounded rationality in farm financing decisions," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 71(1), pages 62-83, May.
    5. Tanner, Carolyn, 1975. "A Survey Of Students' Attitudes To Methods Of Teaching Farm Management," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11.
    6. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    7. Smith, Vernon L., 2010. "Theory and experiment: What are the questions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 3-15, January.
    8. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    9. W. Brian Arthur, 1994. "Inductive Reasoning, Bounded Rationality and the Bar Problem," Working Papers 94-03-014, Santa Fe Institute.
    10. Carolyn Tanner, 1975. "A Survey Of Students' Attitudes To Methods Of Teaching Farm Management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 19(1), pages 52-62, April.
    11. Longworth, John W., 1969. "Management Games And The Teaching Of Farm Management," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, June.
    12. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1991. "Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 909-924, July.
    13. Trenkel, Hermann E., 2005. "Möglichkeiten experimenteller Methoden in der Agrarökonomie," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    14. Dr. Ger Trip & Prof. dr. ir. Ruud B. M. Huirne & Prof. dr. ir. Jan A. Renkema, 2001. "Evaluating Farmers' Choice Processes in the Laboratory: Workshops with Flower Producers," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 185-201.
    15. Norbert Hirschauer & Stefan Zwoll, 2008. "Understanding and managing behavioural risks: the case of malpractice in poultry production," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 27-60, August.
    16. John W. Longworth, 1969. "Management Games And The Teaching Of Farm Management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 58-67, June.
    17. Arthur, W Brian, 1994. "Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 406-411, May.
    18. Enno Bahrs & Stephan Kroll & Matthias Sutter, 2008. "Trading Agricultural Payment Entitlements: An Experimental Investigation of Bilateral Negotiations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1201-1207.
    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. Mußhoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Hengel, Philipp, 2011. "Sind Unternehmensplanspiele ein geeignetes Instrument zur Analyse begrenzter Rationalität und tatsächlichen Entscheidungsverhaltens?," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 60(3).
    2. Longsworth, John & Menz, Kenneth M., 1977. "Training For Farm Management Decisionmaking," 1977 Occasional Paper Series No. 1 190969, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Zhao, Zhijun & Zhang, Xiaoqi, 2022. "A continuous heterogeneous-agent model for the co-evolution of asset price and wealth distribution in financial market," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Agnieszka Gehringer, 2015. "New evidence on the determinants of current accounts in the EU," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 769-793, November.
    5. Christoph Zott, 2002. "When Adaptation Fails," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(6), pages 727-753, December.
    6. Delli Gatti,Domenico & Fagiolo,Giorgio & Gallegati,Mauro & Richiardi,Matteo & Russo,Alberto (ed.), 2018. "Agent-Based Models in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108400046, November.
    7. Troy Tassier, 2013. "Handbook of Research on Complexity, by J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. and Edward Elgar," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 132-133.
    8. Reise, Christian & Musshoff, Oliver & Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2012. "Which factors influence the expansion of bioenergy? An empirical study of the investment behaviours of German farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 133-141.
    9. Ott, Ursula F., 2013. "International Business Research and Game Theory: Looking beyond the Prisoner's Dilemma," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 480-491.
    10. Antonio Doria, Francisco, 2011. "J.B. Rosser Jr. , Handbook of Research on Complexity, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK--Northampton, MA, USA (2009) 436 + viii pp., index, ISBN 978 1 84542 089 5 (cased)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 196-204, April.
    11. Rothenstein, R & Pawelzik, K, 2003. "Evolution and anti-evolution in a minimal stock market model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 326(3), pages 534-543.
    12. Maria Minniti & William Bygrave, 2001. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(3), pages 5-16, April.
    13. Kristoufek, Ladislav & Vošvrda, Miloslav S., 2016. "Herding, minority game, market clearing and efficient markets in a simple spin model framework," FinMaP-Working Papers 68, Collaborative EU Project FinMaP - Financial Distortions and Macroeconomic Performance: Expectations, Constraints and Interaction of Agents.
    14. Tatsuya Iwase & Yukihiro Tadokoro & Daisuke Fukuda, 2017. "Self-Fulfilling Signal of an Endogenous State in Network Congestion Games," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 889-909, September.
    15. Kets, W., 2007. "The Minority Game : An Economics Perspective," Other publications TiSEM 65d52a6a-b27d-45a9-93a7-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Pietro Guarnieri & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2024. "Norms and anti-coordination: elicitation and priming in an El Farol Bar Game experiment," Discussion Papers 2024/303, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    17. Bell, Peter N, 2013. "New Testing Procedures to Assess Market Efficiency with Trading Rules," MPRA Paper 46701, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Bischi, Gian Italo & Merlone, Ugo & Pruscini, Eros, 2018. "Evolutionary dynamics in club goods binary games," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 104-119.
    19. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    20. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:ags:gjagec:169847. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    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.