Are Business Management Games a Suitable Tool for Analyzing the Boundedly Rational Behavior of Economic Agents?
Oliver Musshoff, Norbert Hirschauer, Philipp Hengel
DOI: 10.4236/me.2011.24052   PDF    HTML     5,928 Downloads   10,004 Views   Citations


Regulatory policies often aim to steer the behavior of economic agents by changing their economic environment. Assessing the potential impacts of regulatory policies requires forecasts regarding how humans adapt to such changes. One important prerequisite for meaningful policy impact analysis is in-depth knowledge of why and to what extent economic agents behave in a boundedly rational way. We propose that business management games can be used to contribute towards better understanding of agent behaviors, since they provide an inexpensive opportunity to reach beyond existing anecdotal evidence concerning “behavioral anomalies”. Modifying an existing business management game in which investment, financing and produc tion 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 show that decisions made by participants in this game are strongly influenced by bounded rationality. They also show that both incomplete information and limited cognitive abilities are relevant components of the bounded rationality displayed by players.

Share and Cite:

O. Musshoff, N. Hirschauer and P. Hengel, "Are Business Management Games a Suitable Tool for Analyzing the Boundedly Rational Behavior of Economic Agents?," Modern Economy, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2011, pp. 468-478. doi: 10.4236/me.2011.24052.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Keys and J. Wolfe, “The Role of Management Games and Simulations in Education and Research,” Journal of Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1990, pp. 307-336. Hdoi:org/10.1177/014920639001600205
[2] J. W. Longworth, “Management Games and the Teaching of Farm Management,” Australian Journal of Agricu- ltural Economics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1969, pp. 58-67.
[3] J. W. Longworth, “From War-Chess to Farm Manag- ment Games,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Econo- mics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1970, pp. 1-11. Hdoi:org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1970.tb00897.x
[4] C. Tanner, “A Survey of Students’ Attitudes to Methods of Teaching Farm Management,” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1975, pp. 52-62.
[5] H. A. Simon, “Rational Choice and the Structure of En- vironments,” Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, 1956, pp. 129-138. Hdoi:org/10.1037/h0042769
[6] G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten, “Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002.
[7] R. Selten, “Bounded Rationality,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 146, No. 4, 1990, pp. 649-658.
[8] CMEF, “Common Monitoring and Evaluation Frame- work,” Retrieved February 18, 2011.
[9] V. Smith, “Theory and Experiments: What are the Que- stions?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 73, No. 1, 2010, pp. 3-15. Hdoi:org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.02.008
[10] BMELV, “Buchführungsergebnisse der Testbetriebe 2007/2008,” 2008.
[11] B. E. Roe and D. R. Just, “Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments and Field Data,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 91, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1266-1271. Hdoi:org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01295.x
[12] K. H. Coble, Z. Yang and M. D. Hudson, “Using Experi- mental Economics to Evaluate Alternative Subjective Elicitation Procedures,” Applied Economics, 2009. Hdoi:org/10.1080/0003684080.
[13] D. Hudson, “Problem Solving and Hypothesis Testing Using Economic Experiments,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2003, pp. 337- 347.
[14] J. Conlisk, “Why Bounded Rationality?” Journal of Eco- nomic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 2, 1996, pp. 669-700.
[15] O. Musshoff and N. Hirschauer, “A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Bounded Rationality in Farm Financing Deci- sions: First Empirical Evidence,” Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2011, pp. 62-83.
[16] S. Sandri, C. Schade, O. Musshoff and M. Odening, “Holding On for Too Long? An Experimental Study on Inertia in Entrepreneurs’ and Non-Entrepreneurs’ Disinvestment Choices,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2010, pp. 30-44. Hdoi:org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.011
[17] G. Gigliotti and B. Sopher, “Violations of Present-Value Maximization in Income Choice,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1997, pp. 45-69. Hdoi:org/10.1023/A:1004950613488
[18] G. Trip, R. B. M. Huirne and J. A. Renkema, “Evaluating Farmers’ Choice Processes in the Laboratory: Workshops with Flower Producers,” Review of Agricultural Econo- mics, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2001, pp. 185-201. Hdoi:org/10.1111/1058-7195.00054
[19] W. B. Arthur, “Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Ra- tionality,” American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, 1994, pp. 406-411.
[20] H. Theil, “Applied Economic Forecasting,” Elsevier, Am- sterdam, 1966.
[21] W. Brandes, “über Selbstorganisation in Planspielen Ein Erfahrungsbericht,” Schriften des Vereins für Socialpo- litik, Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts-und Sozialwissen Sch- aften, Neue Folge Band 195/VI, 2002, pp. 61-83.
[22] A. C. Hoggatt, “An Experimental Business Game,” Beha- vioral Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1959, pp. 192-203.
[23] P. J. Schoemaker, “The Expected Utility Model: Its Vari- ants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1982, pp. 529-563.
[24] C. A. Holt, “Teaching Economics with Classroom Ex- periments: A Symposium”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 65, No. 3, 1999, pp. 603-610. Hdoi:org/10.2307/1060819
[25] B. S. Frey and R. Eichenberger, “Anomalies in Political Economy,” Public Choice, Vol. 68, No. 1-3, 1991, pp. 71-89. Hdoi:org/10.1007/BF00173820
[26] R. Skidelsky, “Keynes. The Return of the Master,” Pen- guin, London, 2009.
[27] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” Rational Choice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987, pp. 67-94.
[28] A. Rubinstein, “Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory,” Econometrica, Vol. 59, No. 4, 1991, pp. 909- 924.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.