IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2083-d747571.html

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. World Bank, 2020. "Remote Learning and COVID-19," World Bank Publications - Reports 33479, The World Bank Group.
    5. 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..
    6. World Bank, 2020. "The COVID-19 Pandemic [Pandémie De Covid-19]," World Bank Publications - Reports 33696, The World Bank Group.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Hoppe, Eva I. & Kusterer, David J., 2011. "Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 97-100, February.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    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. Thomas A. Stephens & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2012. "“At least I didn’t lose money” - Nominal Loss Aversion Shapes Evaluations of Housing Transactions," Discussion Papers 12-14, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    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. Oded Galor & Viacheslav Savitskiy, 2018. "Climatic Roots of Loss Aversion," NBER Working Papers 25273, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Sofie R. Waltl & Anthony Lepinteur, 2025. "Tracking Home-Owners’ Sentiments: Subjective Indices and Convergent Validity," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 706-734, May.
    6. Berg, Nathan, 2010. "Behavioral Economics," MPRA Paper 26587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. James Alm & Carolyn J. Bourdeaux, 2013. "Applying Behavioral Economics to the Public Sector," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 206(3), pages 91-134, September.
    9. Dauth, Wolfgang & Haller, Peter, 2020. "Is there loss aversion in the trade-off between wages and commuting distances?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Kenan, Nabil & Diabat, Ali, 2022. "The supply chain of blood products in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic: Appointment scheduling and other restrictions," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Ian McDonald, 2009. "Behavioural Macroeconomics and Wage and Price Setting: Developing Some Early Insights of John Maynard Keynes and Joan Robinson," CAMA Working Papers 2009-11, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    13. Pietro Guarnieri & Tommaso Luzzati, 2018. "Riflessioni intorno al tema della razionalità in economia," Discussion Papers 2018/237, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    14. A. Banerji & Neha Gupta, 2014. "Detection, Identification, and Estimation of Loss Aversion: Evidence from an Auction Experiment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 91-133, February.
    15. Víctor Alberto Pena & Alina G�mez-Mej�a, 2019. "Effect of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and optimism bias in stock market forecasts," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(2), pages 389-409.
    16. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Doruk İriş, 2016. "Economic Targets And Loss-Aversion In International Environmental Cooperation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 624-648, July.
    17. Paul Heidhues & Botond Köszegi, 2004. "The Impact of Consumer Loss Aversion on Pricing," CIG Working Papers SP II 2004-17, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    18. 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.
    19. D. Wade Hands, 2020. "Libertarian paternalism: taking Econs seriously," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 67(4), pages 419-441, December.
    20. Markus Krecik, 2026. "Preference Dynamics: A Procedurally Rational Model of Time And Effort Allocation," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 67(2), pages 879-913, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.