IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v215y2023icp192-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The emergence of social inequality: A Co-Evolutionary analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Oliveira, Fernando S.

Abstract

Social inequality is an important issue at the core of economic thought. Based on a stylized pie-sharing game, this article proposes a co-evolutionary computational model to study the interaction between social classes, aiming to answer the following questions: Why do social classes exist, and how do they affect social efficiency and individual effectiveness? Why are wealth inequality and social exclusion persistent? From a methodological perspective, this article extends the pie-sharing game to include a network of interactions and classes, social mobility, evolving wealth, and learning agents. The results show that social inequality is self-emergent. Surprisingly, in the simulations, the existence of social classes increases individual effectiveness, mainly benefiting the poor. Nonetheless, flatter societies (where social classes exist) have a higher average individual effectiveness. As expected, it was observed that wealth inequality is persistent in hierarchical societies, and the upper classes keep a higher proportion of wealth. Furthermore, the analysis extends the bargaining game to include social mobility, showing that, surprisingly, it increases the robustness of the class system and wealth inequality. Finally, the simulation of dual societies shows that these are an evolutionary equilibrium: social exclusion is persistent and accepted by wealthy and poor individuals, and resources are efficiently used.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliveira, Fernando S., 2023. "The emergence of social inequality: A Co-Evolutionary analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 192-206.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:192-206
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812300210X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.06.003?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. Tetsushi Ohdaira & Takao Terano, 2011. "The Diversity In The Decision Facilitates Cooperation In The Sequential Prisoner'S Dilemma Game," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 377-401.
    2. Bossan, Benjamin & Jann, Ole & Hammerstein, Peter, 2015. "The evolution of social learning and its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 266-288.
    3. Jandhyala, Srividya & Oliveira, Fernando S., 2021. "The role of international anti-corruption regulations in promoting socially responsible practices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 15-32.
    4. Poulsen, Anders Udo, 2007. "Information and endogenous first mover advantages in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 129-143, September.
    5. Axtell, R. & Epstein, J.M. & Young, H.P., 2000. "The Emergence of Classes in a Multi-Agent Bargaining Model," Papers 9, Brookings Institution - Working Papers.
    6. Franke, Reiner, 2003. "Reinforcement learning in the El Farol model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 367-388, July.
    7. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2021. "Evolutionary Stability of Behavioural Rules," MPRA Paper 112920, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 2022.
    8. Tore Ellingsen, 1997. "The Evolution of Bargaining Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 581-602.
    9. Albin, Peter & Foley, Duncan K., 1992. "Decentralized, dispersed exchange without an auctioneer : A simulation study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 27-51, June.
    10. Dirk Helbing & Martin Schönhof & Hans-Ulrich Stark & Janusz A. Hołyst, 2005. "How Individuals Learn To Take Turns: Emergence Of Alternating Cooperation In A Congestion Game And The Prisoner'S Dilemma," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 87-116.
    11. William A. Jackson, 2003. "Social Structure in Economic Theory," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 727-746, September.
    12. Paolo Li Donni & Juan Rodríguez & Pedro Rosa Dias, 2015. "Empirical definition of social types in the analysis of inequality of opportunity: a latent classes approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 673-701, March.
    13. Pierre-André Chiappori & Olivier Donni & Ivana Komunjer, 2012. "Learning from a Piece of Pie," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(1), pages 162-195.
    14. Abigail McKnight, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between poverty, inequality and growth: a review of existing evidence," CASE Papers /216, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    15. Fernando Oliveira, 2010. "Modeling Emotions and Reason in Agent-Based Systems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 155-164, February.
    16. Lahkar, Ratul, 2017. "Equilibrium selection in the stag hunt game under generalized reinforcement learning," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 63-68.
    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. Shu-Heng Chen & Bin-Tzong Chie & Ying-Fang Kao & Ragupathy Venkatachalam, 2019. "Agent-Based Modeling of a Non-tâtonnement Process for the Scarf Economy: The Role of Learning," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 54(1), pages 305-341, June.
    2. Leigh Tesfatsion, 2002. "Agent-Based Computational Economics," Computational Economics 0203001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Aug 2002.
    3. Shu-Heng Chen & Umberto Gostoli, 2017. "Coordination in the El Farol Bar problem: The role of social preferences and social networks," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 12(1), pages 59-93, April.
    4. Alger, Ingela & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2014. "Evolution leads to Kantian morality," TSE Working Papers 14-504, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2015.
    5. Pedro Salas-Rojo & Juan Gabriel Rodríguez, 2022. "Inheritances and wealth inequality: a machine learning approach," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(1), pages 27-51, March.
    6. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    7. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram, 2013. "The empirical content of Cournot competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1552-1581.
    8. Gian Italo Bischi & Ugo Merlone, 2017. "Evolutionary minority games with memory," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 859-875, November.
    9. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Alan Kirman & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2016. "Counter Intuitive Learning: An Exploratory Study," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2016-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    10. Magali Duque & Abigail McKnight, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between inequalities and poverty: a review of dynamic mechanisms," CASE Papers /217, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    11. Miettinen, Topi & Perea, Andrés, 2015. "Commitment in alternating offers bargaining," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-18.
    12. Ian McCarthy, 2008. "Simulating Sequential Search Models with Genetic Algorithms: Analysis of Price Ceilings, Taxes, Advertising and Welfare," CAEPR Working Papers 2008-010, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    13. Rene Saran & Roberto Serrano, 2007. "The Evolution of Bidding Behavior in Private-Values Auctions and Double Auctions," Working Papers wp2007_0712, CEMFI.
    14. Doğan, Gönül, 2018. "Collusion in a buyer–seller network formation game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 445-457.
    15. 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.
    16. Gary Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "A stress test of fairness measures in models of social utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(4), pages 957-982, June.
    17. Michele Bavaro & Federico Tullio, 2023. "Intergenerational mobility measurement with latent transition matrices," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 21(1), pages 25-45, March.
    18. Arthur Charpentier & Romuald Élie & Carl Remlinger, 2023. "Reinforcement Learning in Economics and Finance," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 62(1), pages 425-462, June.
    19. Stathopoulos, Amanda & Cirillo, Cinzia & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Ben-Elia, Eran & Li, Yeun-Touh & Schmöcker, Jan-Dirk, 2017. "Innovation adoption modeling in transportation: New models and data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 61-68.
    20. Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2012. "Which Way to Cooperate," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 1042-1068, September.

    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:jeborg:v:215:y:2023:i:c:p:192-206. 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.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.