Skip to main content

Modelling Price Discovery in an Agent Based Model for Agriculture in Luxembourg

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Complex Systems Modeling and Simulation in Economics and Finance (CEF 2015)

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Complexity ((SPCOM))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We build an ABM for simulation of incentives for maize to produce bio-fuels in Luxembourg with an aim to conduct life cycle assessment of the additional maize and the consequent displacement of other crops in Luxembourg. This paper focuses on the discovery of market price for crops. On the supply side we have farmers who are willing to sell their produce based on their actual incurred costs and an expected markup over costs. On the demand side, we have buyers or middlemen who are responsible for quoting prices and buying the output based on their expectation of the market price and quantity. We have N buyers who participate in the market over R rounds. Each buyer has a correct expectation of the total number of buyers in each market. Thus in each round, the buyer bids for a quantity \(q_b^r=\frac {Q_b^e}{N \times R}\), where \(Q_b^e\) is the expected total output of a crop. The buyer at each round buys \(\min (q_b^r,S_t^r)\), the minimum of the planned purchase at each round r and the total supply \(S_t^r\) by farmers in the round at a price \(p_b^r\). The market clears over multiple rounds. At each round, the buyers are sorted by descending order of price quotes and the highest bidder gets buying priority. Similarly the farmers are sorted according to the ascending order of quotes. At the end of each round, the clearance prices are visible to all agents and the agents have an option of modifying their bids in the forthcoming rounds. The buyers and sellers may face a shortfall which is the difference between the target sale or purchase in each round and the actual realised sale. The shortfall is then covered by smoothing it over future rounds (1–4). The more aggressive behaviour is to cover the entire shortfall in the next round, while a more calm behaviour leads to smoothing over multiple (4) rounds. We find that there is a statistically distinct distribution of prices and shortfall over smoothing rounds and has an impact on the price discovery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The details of the data are available in [9].

  2. 2.

    This assumption is violated in many markets wherein each buyer and seller negotiate a price in private and is unknown to all, but to the buyer and seller. Each buyer and seller goes through a protracted buying and selling process with multiple individuals before forming an opinion of the supply and demand in the market.

  3. 3.

    The downward pricing pressure on the French farmers after the tit-for-tat sanctions imposed by Russia on agriculture produce from NATO countries is a classic case of the above.

  4. 4.

    Decisions are made by individual agents.

  5. 5.

    The price quotes of the buyers are exogenously given before each simulation.

References

  1. Berger, T. (2001). Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: A simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis. Agricultural Economics, 25, 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berta, F. E., Podestá, G. P., Rovere, S. L., Menéndez, A. N., North, M., Tatarad, E., et al. (2011). An agent based model to simulate structural and land use changes in agricultural systems of the argentine pampas. Ecological Modelling, 222, 3486–3499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment practitioner survey: Summary of results. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(4), 12–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Happe, K., Kellermann, K., & Balmann, A. (2006). Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: An illustration of the agricultural policy simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation, and behavior. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 329–342. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art49/.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howitt, R. E. (1995). Positive mathematical programming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ISO. (2010). Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 14040:2006.

    Google Scholar 

  7. KTBL. (2006). Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft (in German). Darmstadt, Germany: Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Le, Q. B., Park, S. J., Vlek, P. L. G., & Cremers, A. B. (2010). Land-use dynamic simulator (LUDAS): A multi-agent system model for simulating spatio-temporal dynamics of coupled human–landscape system. I. Structure and theoretical specification. Ecological Informatics, 5, 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rege, S., Arenz, M., Marvuglia, A., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Benetto, E., Igos, E., et al. (2015). Quantification of agricultural land use changes in consequential Life Cycle Assessment using mathematical programming models following a partial equilibrium approach. Journal of Environmental Informatics. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201500304

  10. SER. Available from: http://www.ser.public.lu/

  11. STATEC. Available from: http://www.statistiques.public.lu/en/actors/statec/index.htm

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was done under the project MUSA (C12/SR/4011535) funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche (FNR), Luxembourg. We thank Romain Reding and Rocco Lioy from CONVIS (4 Zone Artisanale Et Commerciale, 9085 Ettelbruck, Grand-duchy of Luxembourg) for their valuable insight and for the participation to the discussions for the definition of the project MUSA, and of the data collection survey. We thank professors Shu-Heng Chen, Ye-Rong Du, Ragu Pathy, Selda Kao and an anonymous referee for their valuable comments. This paper was presented at the 21st International Conference on Computing in Economics and Finance June 20–22, 2015, Taipei, Taiwan. Sameer Rege gratefully acknowledges the FNR funding for the conference participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rege, S., Gutiérrez, T.N., Marvuglia, A., Benetto, E., Stilmant, D. (2018). Modelling Price Discovery in an Agent Based Model for Agriculture in Luxembourg. In: Chen, SH., Kao, YF., Venkatachalam, R., Du, YR. (eds) Complex Systems Modeling and Simulation in Economics and Finance. CEF 2015. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99624-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics