Monopoly City Rules Pdf Free Download

DEVELOPMENT MONOPOLY is a simulation game that allows players to experience how power relations influence the agency of different socioeconomic groups, and how this can induce poverty and inequality. Players alter the original rules of the MONOPOLY board game so that they more accurately reflect social stratification and inequalities in the context of developing countries. After the game, the players reflect on how they could be made more inclusive and pro-poor. In an individual debriefing, they are invited to think about the connections between game dynamics and contemporary evolutions in developing countries. In a final collective debriefing phase, participants discuss the ways in which the simulation experience enhanced their understandings of poverty and inequality.

Figures - uploaded by Sara Geenen

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Sara Geenen

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

MS ID: 178_development monopoly

WORD COUNT: 6.305 words (+ notes) + 5 pp of figs

ABSTRACT:

This article demonstrates how 'Development Monopoly' can be used to sensitize about

poverty and inequality dynamics in the context of developing countries. First of all, it shows

how this simulation game is framed in theoretical and conceptual frameworks on poverty and

inequality. Second, it reflects upon our own experiences with the game, focusing on rule

crafting, power and game dynamics. Third, it assesses the simulation's learning effects,

looking at the debriefing phase and at different learning outcomes.

KEY WORDS: DEVELOPMENT STUDIES; ECONOMIC GROWTH; POVERTY; INEQUALITY; POWER

RELATIONS; HIGHER EDUCATION; MONOPOLY; SIMULATION GAME.

AUTHOR COPY

DEVELOPMENT MONOPOLY': SIMULATING POVERTY AND

INEQUALITY DYNAMICS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

This article demonstrates how 'Development Monopoly'

can be used to raise awareness

about poverty and inequality dynamics in the context of developing countries. This simulation

game is based upon the classic 'Monopoly' board game

, but has been modified in order to

better reflect realities in socially stratified and unequal societies. Fischer (2008), Coghlan

(2004), Ender (2004), Waldner and Kinney (2003) and Jessup (2001) have previously made

use of a 'Modified Monopoly' version to study social stratification and inequality in Western

societies. According to Waldner and Kinney, one of the advantages of this simulation is to

give "a provocative twist on a game that most students have played" (2003: 6).

In contrast to previous experiences that focused upon the context of developed countries, we

have adapted the Monopoly game to approximate realities in developing countries. The basic

assumption is that in reality, people do not start with equal and almost unlimited

opportunities. Instead, there are several inequality mechanisms at play, which impact

differently upon different groups in society. Furthermore, these mechanisms are shaped by the

institutional context in which they take place, characterised by for example weak states,

authoritarian governance structures, corruption, exploitation and even slavery, struggle for

daily survival, et cetera.

The 'Development Monopoly' game has both factual and socio-emotional learning objectives

(Hromek and Roffey, 2009). In terms of factual learning objectives, the simulation aims to

improve participants' understanding of poverty and inequality dynamics in developing

countries. In terms of socio-emotional learning, the simulation makes participants experience

how power relations influence the agency of different socio-economic groups in society, and

how this results in poverty dynamics. Its purpose is

to temporarily detach students from a

particular context and take them into an abstract game environment, in order to reflect back

upon societal dynamics in the real world. The targeted audience is mainly graduate students

studying poverty and inequality dynamics in developing countries.

In this article we report on our experiences with 'Development Monopoly' and try to assess

the merits and the constraints of using this simulation game in the classroom. In the first part

of the article, we reflect upon how to frame the simulation in the theoretical and conceptual

framework of poverty and inequality. The second part focuses on a particular game

experience (played at the University of Antwerp in 2009) in order to make the rule crafting

and game dynamics more concrete. It shows how poverty, inequality and power dynamics

played out in this particular experience. In the third part we discuss learning outcomes. After

having emphasized the importance of a debriefing phase, we assess the learning effects

among our participants, based on a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the different

simulation experiences. This leads us to a brief conclusion about the usefulness of

'Development Monopoly' for teaching about poverty and inequality.

Poverty and inequality dynamics in a developing context

The 'Development Monopoly' simulation connects to wider social processes by making

participants experience how power relations influence the agency of different socio-economic

groups in society, and how this results in poverty dynamics. In fact, the interactions taking

place during the simulation are comparable to real-life bargaining processes. The Monopoly

game can be compared with a 'political arena', defined by Olivier De Sardan as a 'locus of

political conflict'. A political arena is a space where "heterogeneous strategic groups confront

each other, driven by more or less compatible interest, the actors being endowed with a

greater or lesser level of influence and power" (Olivier de Sardan, 2005: 186). Social actors –

the players of the game - 'interact', 'negotiate' and 'compete' with each other on a common

stake, in this case the production and accumulation of capital.

The "bargaining fight" within such political arenas is determined by and on its turn

determines the livelihoods of different social actors. Poverty can then be conceptualised as an

ongoing process in these bargaining games, where the poor are "those human beings who, for

one reason or another, almost systematically end up at the losing end of the multiple bargains

that are struck around available resources and opportunities" (Bastiaensen et al. 2005:981).

The 'Development Monopoly' game includes several of these negotiation processes, upon

which we will reflect later. Other aspects to be examined are: the role of social actors as

players of the game, the power relations between them, and the institutional arrangements that

provide the rules of the game.

All social actors have the capacity to assess problematic situations and formulate appropriate

responses (Long, 2001: 241). In that sense they possess "agency", even in case of extreme

coercion. Their agency however is embodied in social relations, closely linked with power

relations and shaped through institutional structures (Long, 2001)). In their confrontation with

each other, social actors dispose of unequal power which determines their strategic capacity to

act within the political arena. Institutional structures, which can be defined as "the rules of the

game" or "the framework within which human interaction takes place" (North, 1990:3-4) may

also constrain agency. In 'Development Monopoly', agency comes in when participants

define the rules of the game, and negotiate over the applicability of rules and rule changes

throughout the simulation.

Rules and game dynamics: a case study

In all articles of authors previously engaged in modified monopoly simulations (Fischer,

2008; Coghlan, 2004, Ender, 2004, Waldner and Kinney, 2003, Jessup, 2001), the modified

rules were based upon stratification between participants in different classes. The set of new

rules included divergent monetary starting positions, diverging 'salaries' when passing 'GO',

diverging rights to buy property and diverging rules to get out of jail. Whereas in most of

these simulations, explicit rules were defined in advance by the instructor, Waldner and

Kinney developed a methodology in which students themselves brainstorm about the altered

rules of the game. This results in a different set of rules for each group of participants. It

allows the facilitator to grasp how students interpret real-life dynamics and systems

differently.

We have adopted this exploratory simulation game approach and the principle of "rule

crafting" as we agree with Waldner and Kinney (2003) that "involving students in the

planning and implementation of the simulation combined with a post-game analysis of their

experience" is a method for maximizing positive effects and minimizing potential risks of

oversimplifying and reducing reality. In an exploratory simulation game, there are no fixed

ideas on what the ideal course of action is. Instead, "participants are invited to use the

opportunities provided by the simulation game, find out what they can do given the

boundaries and conditions that are set, and even change these conditions if necessary" (Peters

and Vissers, 2004:77). In this way, the simulation is rather a "free form game" than a "rigid-

rule" game (on types of games, see Klabbers, 2006). It activates students from the pre- up to

the post-game phase.

We explicitly asked our participants to design rules that "better reflect realities in developing

countries". When designing the rules, participants did not know yet which role they were

going to assume. This made them even more conscious about the impact of the rules of the

game upon different socio-economic groups. While playing the game, however, participants

experienced that there was room for manoeuvre; some were able to "bend the rules of the

game" to their favour (see further). Moreover, participants were explicitly asked to change the

rules during the second and the third phase of the game: elite capture and pro-poor revolution.

We have played 'Development Monopoly' in various master programmes in Development

Studies at two different universities located in Belgium (University of Antwerp and

Université Catholique de Louvain). In both master programs, students have a variety of

disciplinary backgrounds, ranging from political and social sciences to economics and

agricultural engineering. In total, over 100 students of different nationalities (coming from

Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe) participated. They were divided in small groups

from 5 to 8 people. Below, we present some selective observations on a simulation game

played in Antwerp in 2009, specifically paying attention to the negotiations over modified

rules and their outcomes. This particular game experience has been chosen because of the

interesting diverging and contrasting dynamics that were recorded by the facilitators. In one

group, there was a lot of cooperation between poorer categories which resulted in increased

agency; in the other group, extreme forms of exploitation drove poor participations to (near)

bankruptcy. Actually, the dynamics in the second group were closer to our 'average' game

experience. Yet, we found it interesting to also include an extensive comment on the

dynamics in the first group, because it illustrates how different the course and outcomes of

Development Monopoly can be. This observation may enhance students' and facilitators'

learning about outcomes in real-life contexts, and the 'agency' of people to change the course

of the game.

The rules of the game: social stratification, constraints and cooperation

Students were divided in two groups of seven students (further referred to as group A and

group B). In each group, there were three female students, and four male. In both groups, the

discussion on the new rules (see tables 1-4) started with the need for social stratification. In

group A, participants agreed to differentiate between three classes (rich, middle class and

poor). In group B, participants came to a consensus to create four classes: one person was

extremely rich, one was rich (equivalent to the middle class), two were poor and three were

extremely poor.

When distributing starting capital, students made sure to create a huge gap between rich and

poor. One participant mentioned that the rich should get 80% of the money, as it is in the real

world

iii

. Yet, a 'realistic' distribution of the money would, according to the participants, make

it practically impossible to play the game, because a large group of people would face

bankruptcy right from the start. Another part of the discussion focused upon the fact that most

poor people usually do not have fixed salaries (interpreted as the money received when

passing GO). A participant rightly pointed to the involvement of poor people in all kinds of

informal activities, and the variability and unpredictably of their earnings.

An extensive discussion took place on whether one should impose restrictions on the kind of

property different categories could buy. All agreed that in reality, poor people do not have

access to the more expensive streets, but one participant in group B proposed to introduce a

condition: to buy more expensive properties, poorer categories had to provide a bail (money

being immobilised as long as the property was in the possession of that person). This rule had

to symbolise a reality where poor people's agency is constrained. Interestingly, in group A,

there was a similar discussion. Yet, the proposal to restrict the right to buy certain streets to

certain classes was rejected, the argument being that "you can buy everything if you have the

money, the only problem is that poor people usually do not have the money." By stating this,

students assumed that lack of access to financial resources is the only restriction for poor

people, an assumption that was discussed in detail during the debriefing phase.

Students in group A very much favoured the idea that the poor can call upon help and get a

'second chance' when facing bankruptcy. However they agreed upon the fact that the poorest

usually do not have access to formal credit systems to overcome urgent needs. Instead, they

have to call upon friends and family, their 'network' to help them out. This possibility was

included in the rules of the game through allowing for cooperation and alliances between the

poor participants (see further). Students further specified that the better-off categories may

call upon the bank for a loan, and fixed a maximum amount and a term for reimbursement. In

group B, students brainstormed on a system in which a nearly-bankrupt person could be

pardoned for accumulated debt. Instead, it was decided that a bankrupt person would be

locked up on the property of the person to whom the money was owned 'like a kind of slave'.

Both groups also reflected upon possible forms of cooperation. Group A decided that the poor

could choose to cooperate and make alliances among themselves to buy property. This

possibility strongly influenced the game dynamics. The rich and middle class could also

cooperate in a more indirect ways

. The group also provided in the possibility for the richer

person to give charity to the poor. In group B on the other hand, cooperation among the poor

was subject to specific constraints. The group agreed to include an additional token, placed

somewhere on the board, playing the role of a NGO. If a poor or extremely poor person had

the chance to end up on this place, then he/she got the permission to form an alliance with

another poor or extremely poor participant. Participants stipulated that the intervention of the

additional token symbolises a reality in which NGOs facilitate collective action

. This is an

interesting statement that highly simplifies the reality in which poor actors do not necessarily

need the involvement of a facilitator to engage in collective strategies; on the contrary,

external development agents can play a negative role. This has been discussed extensively in

the debriefing phase.

After having set the rules both groups played a few rounds according to these new rules. After

that, the game facilitators gave the richest person the opportunity to change the rules ('elite

capture'). After a few rounds under 'elite capture', the game was ended. In what follows, we

describe a number of interesting game dynamics in both groups.

Solidarity and collective strategies in intra (poor) class negotiations (group A)

In group A, all poor were equal in terms of starting capital

and subjected to the same rules.

Moreover, the poor participants developed an overwhelming sense of solidarity right from the

start of the game. Particularly the three poor women were very motivated and vigilant in

promoting mutual support. They had a silent agreement not to remind members of other

classes about their right to collect their salaries when passing 'Go'. They threw dice quickly

after each other, so that the elite would not have the time to benefit from all opportunities. In

addition, they asked a higher rent for their property than was actually due and did not betray

each other. They even stole money from the rich. These silent arrangements gradually evolved

into a firm and more formal alliance between the poor. From providing moral support to each

other to acquire property, they moved towards a system of collective ownership for individual

property

vii

. This system eventually transformed into a collectivity of the poor, putting all their

money and property together. From then onwards, they continued to function as individuals in

terms of throwing dice, but functioned as a collectivity in terms of possessions.

The collective strategies involved more than just playing as one player. The poor players also

tried to bend the rules of the game in their favour. Indeed, the rich and middle class in the

game had a lot of power to define and take advantage of the rules. The middle class became

more and more aligned with the richest, and in the end, both played 'against' the poor. Yet

they never managed to set up an efficient form of collaboration. The 'dominance' of the

poor's strategy on the game dynamics created a lot of resentment among the rich and middle

class

viii

. They accumulated property, built houses, and frustrated the better-off categories.

The frustration of the better-off even continued during the debriefing phase. A middle class

person wrote: "This coalition [among the poor] was composed of honest persons who thought

the game could be won by playing in an honest way, but also of dishonest people [referring to

those who stole money] who used certain strategies to achieve their ultimate goal : more

assets, less expenses and accumulation." The richest participant explained how "[the option to

form an alliance] increased the poor's bargaining power, even to the extent that they

threatened the middle and richest class" or "[we] were very worried about the aggressive

move of the poor (high accumulation) and frustrated of losing all our property", although in

reality they did not lose any property in absolute terms. Interestingly, students started to

define winners and losers of the game not in terms of accumulated wealth, but in terms of

power structures between social classes. And the power structure changed throughout the

game in favor of the poor as a result of their collective strategy. As one of the students

observed afterwards: "[The poor] used and manipulated the rules of the game very well".

They developed their own hidden transcript of 'silent agreements', eventually evolving

towards more open and successful contestation of the public transcript (Scott, 1995). Of

course, these kinds of emotions that still came up during the debriefing phase, need to be

attenuated by group discussions (see further).

Exploitation and exclusion in inter class negotiations (group B)

In group B, the game took a very different twist. Differentiation among the poor occurred

right from the start through the fact that disparity between 'poor' and 'extreme poor' was

embedded within the rules of the game. This disparity in facts implicitly inserted an element

of superiority and inferiority, and thus of power among poor participants. This clearly

discouraged the emergence of collective strategies.

In addition, the poor groups were constrained by the rules of the game in developing

collective action. Cooperation between two participants was only allowed when being

facilitated by an NGO. The de facto formation of such strategic alliances was based upon

opportunistic selection from the part of the deciding participant. The first 'poor' person

meeting the NGO token on the play board opted for an alliance with the other 'poor',

considering an alliance with the 'extreme poor' as less advantageous. When facing the same

opportunity, an 'extremely poor' again choose an alliance with the best-off – male - person

within her category. The other worse-off – and female – extremely poor participant tried in

vain to turn the choice in her favor by stressing gender ("We women should stick together").

Opportunistic behaviour also dominated inter class negotiations over the buying of property.

During the brainstorming phase on modified rules, participants had specified that a person X,

when landing on a property that he or she could not afford, was allowed to use his buying

right in favour of person Y, who in return would offer some additional money to X. These

negotiations frequently occurred and took up a lot of game time.

An important element during these negotiations was the cooperation / competition taking

place between the rich and middle class person. At several occasions, they tried to outbid each

other in terms of the additional amount offered to poorer categories to acquire the property.

This could potentially have improved the bargaining position of the poor. However, at the

same time, there seemed to be an implicit agreement between the rich and middle class to not

go beyond a certain amount being attributed to the poorer categories.

Both better-off participants were in fact more concerned with their power positions than with

the accumulation of money and properties. They did not mind seeing poorer participants

getting into trouble and did not reply to any of their requests to treat them more fairly.

Moreover, the middle class person adopted a divide-and-rule strategy setting the other

categories up against each other. The poorer categories perceived his strategies in the game as

extremely exploitative. On the other hand, power dynamics also played among the poor.

Whereas they encouraged each other in taking a firm stance not to accept a low price from the

better-off categories, they were also internally divided.

Many elements that characterised the course of the game in group B were actually present in

other games we played in 2010 and 2011: exploitation by elites, competition between elites

and middle classes, lack of cooperation due to diverging interests within poorer categories,

opportunistic behaviour within all classes and the focus of participants on 'dominating the

game' rather than or next to wealth accumulation.

Learning effects

The importance of a debriefing phase

Simulation games are regularly used by lecturers as a complement or alternative to more

conventional learning models (Boocock, 1994). The use of simulation games in a class

environment offers several advantages. Games increase students' motivation and their interest

in learning; they promote individual discovery and provide an excellent technique for

affective and conceptual learning; they enhance cooperation and communication between

students; and they create a more positive socio-emotional classroom environment. In fact,

games represent a specific aspect of reality; they "allow reality to be reduced in size until it

reaches manageable proportions" (Dorn, 1989: 4).

The downturn of this advantage is however a huge oversimplification of reality. Indeed, our

Development Monopoly can only simulate the dynamics taking place within one political

arena, whereas reality is composed of various partly overlapping arenas. As a result, the game

dynamics in Development Monopoly are too one-dimensional to really approximate a

complex reality. Furthermore, games are not value-free and may result in the reinforcement of

stereotypes (see for example the idea of an NGO as facilitator of collective action). Brezina

(quoted in Waldner and Kinney, 2003: 5) criticizes the use of simulation games in teaching

inequality for reinforcing individualistic thinking and "ignoring both social mobility at the

individual level and the relative nature of social inequality".

In addition, simulation games might provoke intense feelings of frustration, anger or

disappointment. Therefore, an important function of the debriefing phase is to 'cool down'

these emotions. Indeed, the 'Development Monopoly' games we played provoked intense

feelings among the participants. Students had quickly internalized their roles, which made it

difficult for some students to 'step out' of their role. In order to mitigate those possible

negative effects, participants should carefully reflect about the game and its relation to reality.

Therefore, the debriefing phase is probably the most important element of the simulation

(Steinwachs, 1992). Students should be given time to reflect upon their feelings during the

game, the strategies and outcomes, and to detach themselves from their own role to look at the

broader picture. The debriefing phase should also encourage students to link the game

dynamics to the wider course themes and to real-life situations (Peters and Vissers, 2004).

We organized a debriefing in three phases. Immediately after the game, students were asked

to reflect about how the rules of the game could be made more 'pro-poor' (see tables 3 and 4).

During this brainstorming exercise, students discussed a redistribution of properties and

salaries, the role of the state as public service deliverer and safety nets for the poor. It

stimulated them to think about the feasibility and constraints to actually implement those

policies in the real world.

Secondly, students wrote an individual reflection the day after the game was played. They

reflected upon their position in the game, their strategies and feelings, interaction with other

students, and were also asked to connect the game dynamics with the literature discussed in

class and with real-life situations. In line with Inglis et al. (2004: 481), students were

stimulated "to reflect on their experiences during the simulation and consider their

observations of others but to frame their answer as an analysis of social processes and

structures rather than a description of personal experiences".

One week after this, a collective debriefing session was organized, where students and

lecturers once again reflected on what they had learned. A collective debriefing is crucial

because it stimulates students to analyse the interaction between their own actions and the

positions of others, thereby linking their own experiences to the wider game dynamics. A list

of discussion questions is provided in the 'Ready to use simulation'. These questions touch

upon different topics: evaluation of the role (did you perform well, in relation to your initial

starting position), participant self evaluation (how did you play, how did you feel while

playing, what were your strategies during the game), evaluation of the game (strengths and

weaknesses of the game's applicability to reality).

Assessing learning effects

So did this simulation really help students to learn 'better' about poverty and inequality

dynamics? To truly answer this question, we should compare the learning outcomes of

students involved in this simulation with those of a control group that has not been exposed to

the game experience. Unfortunately we have not been able to do this so far. However, we did

conduct an ex ante (before the game) and an ex post (after the game) survey among 103

students in 2010-2011 (for results, see table 5). This questionnaire aims to measure the socio-

emotional learning outcomes (participants' attitudes towards poverty and inequality, and the

way in which power relations influence the agency of different groups and how this results in

poverty dynamics)

and its results will be briefly discussed here. In addition, we refer to

statements made in the individual reflection papers of students and during the collective

debriefing discussions (2009 – 2011).

A first objective was to stimulate students to experience and think about poverty and

inequality in a development context. Interestingly, the experience of the simulation seems to

have decreased the number of students that consider inequality to be the result of a difference

in mentalities. Whereas ex ante, 25% agreed with the statement, this was only 20% after the

game. Also their perception upon the meaning of poverty shifted. In our survey, we asked

students which aspect they find most important in the conceptualisation of poverty: a lack of

means to build up a viable livelihood, a lack of skills to engage in remunerating strategies, or

a lack of power to influence the rules of the game. Whereas in the ex ante survey, 45%

referred to a lack of means as most important aspect characterising poverty, this was only

36% in the ex post survey. And whereas 35% of students referred to a lack of power to

influence the rules of the game as the most important aspect of poverty in the ex-ante survey,

this was 45% in the ex post survey.

Indeed, students increasingly appreciated the importance of power and relative bargaining

positions in poverty and inequality dynamics. The original Monopoly game rules state that

"the object of the game is to become the wealthiest player". Interestingly, participants in the

simulation often reframed 'winning' or 'losing' in the modified version in terms of the

improvement of the relative position of participants, their power and their dominance in any

negotiations taking place on the playing board

. As one participant concluded in the post-

game reflection: "I have taken a lesson that effective poverty reduction is not simply an issue

of giving additional financial means, it rather has to do with societal structural change and

improved bargaining power." When measuring their appreciation of 'the inequalities between

socio-economic groups are largely due to unequal power relations', the percentage of students

agreeing increased from 67% ex ante to 77% ex post.

The game dynamics also had an impact upon the ways in which participants perceive the

relationships between different socio-economic categories in society. There was for example a

significant increase in the percentage of students agreeing with the statement 'the larger the

gap between rich and poor, the higher the chances that elites will behave in an authoritarian

way' (from 70% ex ante to 76% ex post). This might be linked to the way in which

participants playing elites interpreted their role – they often adopted a superior attitude – and

the impact this had upon the game. A student mentioned for example 'he (the rich person in

the game) was so proud of his position, with every time sadistic interventions [referring to his

authoritarian exercise of power]'. In addition, a higher percentage did not object to the idea of

an increased likeliness of a radical of violent revolt of the poor in case of a larger gap between

rich and poor (56% agreed ex ante, versus 67% ex post). The frustration felt by some of the

poorest players during the simulation lays at the basis of this shift. A poor participant

mentioned 'as a low income woman, I got the worst role. Of course I was demoralized, sad,

ashamed, wondering why me and not another player'. The percentage agreeing with the idea

of the poor being entrapped in a poverty trap ('Once you are poor, it is very difficult to escape

poverty') increased from 55% ex ante to 65% ex post.

On the other hand, participants did notice that some initially poor players were capable of

improving their situation. A player mentioned for example: "It was interesting to see how a

poor person could start with a low capital and how, despite unfavourable competition; he

could 'manoeuvre' himself to acquire more wealth". The percentage rejecting the idea of

'social mobility as being within reach for all' decreased from 37% to 30%. However, in their

post-game reflections, participants extensively commented on the way in which the rules of

the game may limit social actors' agency and chances for social mobility.

At some occasions, a mutual experience of being poor did entail solidarity and even led to

collective strategies to counter the rules of the game [as in group A described above]. This

was reflected by the fact that 90% of the participants agreed ex post (in comparison to 79% ex

ante) with the idea of collective action having the potential to improve the well-being of poor

people. However, being poor does not necessarily entail a common identity on the basis of

mutual sympathy. Only half of the participants agreed with this statement ex ante, and even a

bit less ex post (47%). Indeed, there were many groups where despite a feeling of mutual

sympathy among the poor, this did not lead to a common identity, or to collective contestation

of the rules.

A similar observation can be made with regards to participants' attitude towards the potential

of policies to improve the poor's well-being. In our survey, participants indicated a high trust

in the potential of efficient policies to reduce poverty (96% ex ante and 95% ex post) and

inequalities between socio-economic groups (89% ex ante up to 94% ex post). In their post-

game reflections, however, they critically reflected upon the constraints that may prevent the

implementation of such policies. A participant mentioned for example how 'it is critical to

highlight that the idea of inclusive development is premised on the need to have all actors

involved in pro poor thinking and policy change'. Someone else mentioned that 'the

involvement of the poor in policy making rarely happens and this partly explains why the

poor have persistently remained in chronic poverty'. Participants also reflected critically upon

the role of elites in the process: 'Elites are happy to give handouts insofar as it satisfies their

moral guilt of being wealthy but they are not necessarily keen on reducing the gap between

the rich and the poor'. Both in the ex ante and ex post survey, about 81% disagreed with the

statement that 'elites want to reduce the gap between rich and poor'.

Very important was the way in which students experienced and learned about the game

metaphor, and how it made them experience to 'stand in someone else's shoes'. Over 84% of

participants saw links between the game dynamics and the societal dynamics in the real

world. The fact that some participants were carried away by their emotions and incorporated

their 'role' shows that the simulation let them experience what it is to be rich or poor. A

participant mentioned how the game reflects realities of real life as one never chooses which

socio-economic group they are born into. This resulted in feelings of frustration and

contentment (each felt by 63% of all participants). Whereas 81% of participants appreciated

the way in which he or she personally played the game, 74% also indicated that if he or she

were to play the game again, he or she would adopt different strategies.

The overall appreciation of participants of the simulation experience was very positive. 85%

found the game interesting, 89% enjoyed himself or herself during the game; and 91%

indicated that the simulation should be repeated the next year. Moreover, 93% agreed that the

simulation helps to better understand the conceptual framework of the course; and 87%

indicated to have a better understanding of real social dynamics after having played the game.

Overall, this allows us to say that – while we were not able to determine whether this game is

a 'better' teaching technique in comparison to alternatives – it is a welcome addition to

traditional teaching approaches.

Conclusion

This version of 'Development Monopoly' has been conceived as an exploratory simulation

game, in which students are involved in the planning and implementation. As a consequence,

the rules of the game will always be different. The 'Ready to Use Simulation' provides the

necessary guidelines for participants and facilitators, but overall, the game is quite 'open'.

There is a lot of space for rules crafting by the participants. This enhances students'

involvement in the game right from the start. It also stimulates them to move back and forth

between the abstract game environment and realities in the developing world, by discussing

the modified rules and actively participating in the game. In the end they draw lessons from

the game dynamics to consider how the pro-poor character of the game could be improved,

and how these modifications are applicable to realities in specific developing countries.

Overall, there are strong indications that 'Development Monopoly' is an effective tool to raise

awareness about poverty and inequality dynamics in the context of developing countries. It

can facilitate student's learning about poverty and inequality dynamics, and increase their

understandings of the role of social actors as players of the game, the power relations between

them, and the institutional arrangements that provide the rules of the game. Moreover, it

provides a 'fun' alternative to traditional teaching approaches by allowing students to have a

first-hand experience of how poverty and inequality are shaped in developing countries.

Appendices

Table 1. Group A: original rules

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Rich Middle class Poor

1 person 2 persons

4 persons

Token Horse Car, ship Shoe, dog, iron,

wheelbarrow

Control of bank Yes, if he/she chooses

to Yes, appointed by rich No

Initial assets 5250 1575 525

Salary when passing

'go' 500 200 100

Property rules Can buy everything

from 2

round on

Can buy everything

from 3d round on

Can buy everything

from 4

round on

Railways Can buy Can buy Can not buy

Services (electricity

and water) Can buy Can not buy Can not buy

Taking turns Starts to play and then

clockwise Clockwise Clockwise

Free parking Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Luxury tax 100, divided among the

poor Not applicable

Not applicable (they

decide how to distribute

100)

Income tax 10% 10% 10%

Going to jail

Allowed to get out

immediately when

paying 100 to the

middle class (he can

divide it as he/she

wishes)

Allowed to get out the

next turn when paying

Allowed to get out the

next turn when paying

Chance Yes Yes No

Bankruptcy Not applicable

Can get a loan, max.

500, pay back within 3

rounds, only once

Can ask for charity

Cooperation Might form an alliance for control of the bank

(symbolic cooperation)

Possible to make

alliances

Table 2. Group A: rules after pro-poor revolution

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Rich Middle class Poor

1 person 2 persons

4 persons

Token Horse Car, ship Shoe, dog, iron,

wheelbarrow

Control of bank Can apply for the job Can apply for the job Can apply for the job

Initial assets 4500 3000 2500

Salary when passing

'go'

Minimum wage 200,

maximum wage 400

Minimum wage 200,

maximum wage 400

Minimum wage 200,

maximum wage 400

Property rules Can buy everything Can buy everything Can buy everything

Paying rents Pay full rent Pay 1/2 Pay 1/4

Railways State-owned State-owned State-owned

Services (electricity

and water) State-owned State-owned State-owned

Use of public services Pay full amount Pay 3/4 Pay 1/2

Taking turns Rolling dice and then

clockwise

Rolling dice and then

clockwise

Rolling dice and then

clockwise

Free parking Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Luxury tax Pay Do not pay Do not pay

Income tax 10% 5% 2%

Going to jail Fair trial Fair trial Fair trial

Chance Yes Yes Yes

Bankruptcy

If they have assets

worth min. 400; access

to loan (mortgage), if

they do not have those

assets, they can get a

grant from international

organization/ NGO

If they have assets

worth min. 400; access

to loan (mortgage), if

they do not have those

assets, they can get a

grant from international

organization/ NGO

If they have assets

worth min. 400; access

to loan (mortgage), if

they do not have those

assets, they can get a

grant from international

organization/ NGO

Cooperation Possible to make

alliances

Possible to make

alliances

Possible to make

alliances

Table 3. Group B: original rules

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Extremely rich Rich Poor Extremely poor

1 person 1 person 2 persons

(1 male, 1 female)

3 persons

(1 male, 2 female)

Token Ship Car Hat, Finger thing Shoe, Iron, Wheel

barrow

Control of bank Yes Impossible Impossible Impossible

Initial assets 7000 3000 550 250

Salary when

passing 'go' 300 200 100 50

Property rules Can buy

everything

Can not buy dark

blue and green

except if paying a

bail of 3000 for

dark blue and

green

Can not buy dark

blue, green, yellow

and red except if

paying a bail of

3000 for dark bleu

and green, and of

550 for yellow and

red

Can only buy

purple and light

blue except if

paying a bail of

3000 for dark blue

and green, of 550

for yellow and red,

of 250 for orange

and pink

Additional chance

to acquire

property

Can use category

2, 3 and 4 to buy

property they land

on but can not buy

(bidding system)

Can use category 3

and 4 to buy

property they land

on but can not buy

(bidding system)

Can use category 3

and 4 to buy

property they land

on but can not buy

(bidding system)

Can use category 4

to buy property

they land on but

can not buy

(bidding system)

Railways Can buy Can not buy

Services

(electricity and

water)

Can buy Can not buy

Taking turns Choice to play or not Always have to play

Free parking Pay 50 Pay 20 Take all the money

on the board

Can take 50% of

the money on the

board

Luxury tax 75 75 Not applicable Not applicable

Income tax 300 200 100 50

Going to jail Allowed to get out the next turn when

paying 100

Only allowed to get out when rolling

double dice

Chance and

community chest As mentioned on the chance or community chest card

Bankruptcy

You stay on the street where you went bankrupt as a slave

Table 4. Group B: rules after pro-poor revolution

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Extremely rich Rich Poor Extremely poor

1 person 1 person 2 persons

(1 male, 1 female)

3 persons

(1 male, 2 female)

Token Tokens are not necessarily linked to categories, they are attributed to the person

that throws the highest dies

Control of bank Control of the bank is done collectively, bank is placed in the middle of the

playing board and everyone can oversee which transactions take place

Initial assets As they are at that stage of the game

Salary when

passing 'go' 200 200 170 150

Solidarity tax

paid when

passing 'go'

20 20 17 15

The fund collected through these taxes is a solidarity fund that people may use

when going bankrupt

Credit

Can borrow 50% of total amount owned

(1000$ is threshold)

Money is available for one round,

interest rate of 10%

Can borrow 50%

of total amount

owned (1000$ is

threshold)

Money is available

for three rounds,

interest rate of 5%

Can borrow 50%

of total amount

owned (1000$ is

threshold)

Money is available

for three rounds,

interest rate of 1%

Redistribution of

property

Can keep 3 properties, rest returns to state and can be bought according to normal

rules

Property rules Can buy everything except train stations and electricity and water services,

no bail rules

Trainstations,

electricity and

water services

Owned by the state, pay to the state (bank) if falling on this

position

Owned by the

state, category 4

does not have to

pay when falling

on this position

Taking turns

You have to play, except if you have less than 100$

If you have less than 500$, then you can choose how many positions you go

forward out of 3 options (number of dice one, number of dice two, number of sum

of two dies - if you throw 1 + 6, then you may move forward 1 or 6 or 7 places)

Free parking Pay 50 Pay 20

Can take 50% of

the money on the

board

Can take 50% of

the money on the

board

Luxury tax 75 75 Not applicable Not applicable

Income tax 200 200 170 150

Going to jail Choice between getting out by paying 50 or trying to role double dies

Chance and

community chest As mentioned on the chance or community chest card

Bankruptcy

If you have less than 100$, you can freese and stay where you are OR

you can get money from the solidarity fund (see solidarity tax – but no specific

rules were specified on how much you can get)

Table 5. Ex ante and ex post survey results

Does not

agree Neutral Does

agree

Relations between socio-economic categories

Elites are concerned about the poor's fate 71,9

(68,6)

8,3

(14,7)

19,8

(16,7)

Elites want to improve poor people's well- being 67,7

(70,7)

18,8

(19,2)

13,6

(10,1)

Elites want to reduce the gap between rich and poor 75,3

(73,7)

15,1

(16,2)

9,7

(10,1)

A society needs a middle class to develop itself 7,2

(5,9)

19,6

(18,6)

73,2

(75,5)

Being poor results in a kind of common identity on the basis of

mutual sympathy

29,9

(23,5)

22,7

(26,5)

47,5

(50,0)

Inequality and disparities

The larger the gap between rich and poor, the higher the chances

that elites will behave in an authoritarian way

10,3

(10,8)

13,4

(19,6)

76,3

(69,6)

The larger the gap between rich and poor, the higher the chances

that the poor will revolt in a radical or violent way

12,4

(21,6)

20,6

(22,5)

67,0

(55,9)

The larger the gap between rich and poor, the fewer chances the

poor have to escape poverty

12,4

(13,0)

5,2

(4,0)

82,5

(83,0)

The inequality between socio-economic groups is largely due to

different mentalities

62,9

(64,4)

17,5

(10,9)

19,6

(24,7)

The inequalities between socio-economic groups are largely due to

unequal power relations

10,4

(14,7)

12,5

(18,6)

77,1

(66,7)

The inequalities between socio-economic groups in a country can

be reduced thanks to efficient policy measures

2,1

(5,9)

4,1

(4,9)

93,9

(89,2)

Mobility

Upward social mobility is possible for all 29,9

(37,4)

25,8

(18,2)

44,3

(44,3)

Once you are poor, it is very difficult to escape poverty 20,6

(36,6)

14,4

(7,9)

65,0

(55,4)

If a poor persons works very hard, he/she will be rewarded

(his/her well-being will be increased)

44,8

(43,6)

17,7

(16,8)

37,5

(39,6)

Poor people can improve their well-being by collective action 1,0

(8,9)

9,3

(11,9)

89,7

(79,2)

Poverty can be reduced if a government takes efficient policy

measures

1,0

(2,0)

4,1

(2,0)

94,8

(96,0)

Note: Data between brackets are from the ex-ante survey, without brackets from the ex-post survey. We were

unable to determine whether the difference between ex ante and ex post results is significant.

The guidelines on how to play this game are outlined in the 'Ready to use game' section.

On the history and particularities of the 'Monopoly' game, see Grofman, 1978. The advantage of using a board

game in comparison to a computer game is the "transparency regarding the core mechanisms of the game and the

way they are interrelated", which facilitates the analysis and in-depth understanding of the game dynamics

(Zagal et al., 2006).

iii

It had been raised during the course that on a world scale, the richest quintile own 82.7% of total income

(based upon UNDP's Human Development Report 1992).

This cooperation would occur through control of the bank (symbolic cooperation).

This is an interesting statement that highly simplifies the reality in which external development agents can play

various positive but also negative roles. This had been discussed extensively in one of the previous course

sessions.

Yet, one participant interpreted his lowest score when rolling dices to decide upon social classification as him

being the 'poorest among the poor'. He writes: "I was really frightened when I was selected as the poorest in the

group." The participant refers among others to the Hindu society, where the poor are also extremely dividing

among themselves, which according to this participant shuts down a lot of opportunities.

vii

When a poor participant eventually landed on an expensive property he could not buy, another poor person

proposed to contribute money in return for shared rents. From that point onwards, the poor continued to support

each other to collect assets. At a certain point, the male poor participant had collected quite some cash. A female

poor participant said: "We are one team you know, never forget, because maybe, if you are becoming richer and

richer, you will forget us." Another poor lady replied: "Maybe we should sign a contract", to which the first

objected: "No no, we trust each other".

viii

At a certain moment, the rich person in the game sighed: "The poor are too strong, they are too strong".

Somewhat later in the game, he said: "We have to revolt, not the poor!" And a middle class person added: "What

is this kind of society?" This caused great hilarity among the poor. One of the poor ladies exclaimed (thereby

trying to attract the attention from the members of Group B): "We won the game, we won!"

Next to socio-emotional learning objectives, the factual learning objectives (participants' understanding of

poverty and inequality dynamics, the related theories and concepts) were assessed through the individual

reflection written by students (second debriefing phase).

This is illustrated by several statements of students in the reflection paper and in the reflection discussion: "I

started to lose, which means: I was losing my bargaining power" "The one of the middle class was on the verge

of bankruptcy". While in absolute terms, this person owned $2662, yet, in relative terms, he was losing at that

moment and he felt frustrated when confronted with the strong solidarity among the poor. "The game became

more and more favorable to the poor. This began to frustrate the rich and the middle class participants who

considered the poor as becoming very offensive".

... The purpose of the Landlord's Game was to represent an educational tool for illustrating the negative aspects of concentrating on land in private monopolies (Pilon, 2015). Over the years, different versions of the Monopoly game board have been developed; junior versions for young children, online versions or various Monopoly game based tools for learning and discussion purposes, for instance with financial accounting (Shanklin & Ehlen, 2007) or poverty and inequality (Ansoms & Geenen, 2012). ...

To support collective creativity in innovation interdisciplinary methods are required. This study introduces the Innotin game to support collective creativity. This multiple case study includes three co-design workshops, where the Innotin game was played. The primary research question is how can gamification support collective creativity in multi-actor innovation activities? The first objective is to study the experiences of the players of the Innotin game and examine how the game supports creativity according to them and what they consider is essential in the game. The second objective is to define the results of the co-design workshops. What kinds of ideas were generated with the help of the game and what did the players learn during the game? The results of this study indicate that low-tech (board) games can be developed into a method that enhances creativity between collaborators in innovation activities.

... We therefore asked our students post-game to work in the same groups they had played, and to list how the modified game was realistic or unrealistic; and, also, how the game could be modified to make it more realistic or just more fun. Similar prompts have been suggested by other instructors to encourage reflection [Ansoms and Geenen, (2012a), pp.858-859; Coghlan and Huggins, (2004), p.186;Cole, (2008), pp.11-12;Fisher, (2008), p.278;Jessup, (2001), p.106]. Then the groups shared them as part of a large class discussion. ...

Modified versions of the board game Monopoly have been used to teach inequality. This paper reviews modifications suggested in the pedagogical literature and then reports survey-based results on whether playing a modified version of the game affected students' objective perceptions or subjective attitudes towards inequality. Our survey results suggest that, compared to a group of students who received only a traditional lecture on inequality statistics, students who played the modified Monopoly game saw larger improvements in their objective perceptions of the actual extent of income and wealth inequality and, also, bigger changes in their subjective attitudes about the importance of inheritance, luck, and hard work to real-world success. Yet, attitudes were not dramatically affected by playing the game and misperceptions about basic inequality statistics remained, so higher impact approaches to teaching inequality are still needed.

Gissel Velarde

Con este trabajo de ciencia, Velarde nos acerca a cuestionamientos actuales, perennes y de la ciencia ficción. Velarde teje una historia cautivante de lo que ella ha llamado la Era artificial, y presenta las predicciones sobre el impacto tecnológico gracias a los avances de la inteligencia artificial.

Poverty observed from business in the academic field has evolved in some publications and is characterized as a multidimensional phenomenon, having several theoretical strands that add their attention to this problem. The objective of this study is to identify and cluster the variables of poverty in the business area through the network analysis. There were 1,745 keywords mentioned in 566 papers about the theme present in the Scopus database between 2000 and 2016. The results demonstrate a network with four clusters: (a) Economy, government and people; (b) Community, institutions and market; (c) Business and environment; and (d) Social aspects and finance. From the network, it is possible to understand the most cited categories of variables (research methodology and business aspects), the most consolidated relations between categories of variables (poverty and economic aspects), the most studied area (Economy, government and people), and the gaps to be explored.

Durch Freizeitaktivitäten, wie das Hören von Musik (vgl. Mittelstädt/ Wiepcke 2015) oder das Spielen von Computerspielen (vgl. Rehm 2013) erwerben Individuen bewusst oder unbewusst Alltagswissen, das sie zur Bewältigung von lebensweltlichen (ökonomisch geprägten) Anforderungen nutzen können. Insofern findet in informellen Kontexten Lernen statt. Es stellt sich jedoch die Frage der Qualität des so erworbenen Alltagswissens. Insofern liegt die Vermutung nahe, solche Kontexte bzw. ihre didaktisch bedeutsamen Elemente im Rahmen intentionaler Erziehungsprozesse aufzugreifen oder zielgerichtet einzusetzen. Die pädagogisch legitimierte Verzahnung von informellen und formellen Kontexten kann aber nur auf der Basis einer fachdidaktischen Analyse des entsprechenden Kontextes oder Artefaktes vorgenommen werden. Das Gesellschaftsspiel Monopoly ist ein solches Artefakt. Für dieses Spiel wird exemplarisch und experimentell-explorativ untersucht, welche ökonomischen Momente, Tatbestände oder Grundeinsichten das Spiel bzw. das ihm zugrundeliegende Modell beinhaltet und in welchem Maß Monopoly damit tatsächlich zum Kompetenzerwerb im Sinne ökonomischer Bildung beitragen könnte. Eine solche Analyse wird hier exemplarisch anhand der Stoffkategorien nach May (1998) vorgenommen. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass das originäre Spiel viele Aspekte ökonomischen Denkens und Handels beinhaltet. Jedoch sind diese vielfach verkürzt, teilweise verzerrt oder von ökonomischer Irrationalität geprägt. Andere ökonomisch relevante Sachverhalte werden hingegen nicht adressiert. Daher scheint ein didaktisch reflektierter Einsatz des Spiels in formalen Lernkontexten sinnvoll. Online: https://www.zfoeb.de/sondernummer_tagungsband_degoeb_2018/2020_10001_99_121_bergmann.pdf

This research explores whether participating in a poverty simulation resulted in changes to participants' beliefs about the causes and effects of poverty, as well as shifts in their attitudes and actions towards people experiencing poverty. In this multiple case study, we analysed quantitative and qualitative data from participant feedback surveys and pre-, post- and follow-up questionnaires from two samples: undergraduate students and community participants. We conclude that the poverty simulation is only a step, albeit a potentially important one, to enhance participants' understanding about the causes of poverty, and to alter their attitudes and beliefs about people living in poverty.

Lyndall Bryant

This article outlines the results from a study into the educational use of the board game Monopoly City™ in a first-year property economics unit. Gameplay was introduced as an interactive way of achieving a number of desired outcomes including: enhanced engagement of first-year students; introduction of foundation threshold concepts in property education; introduction of problem solving and critical analysis skills; early acculturation of property students to enhance student retention; and early team building within the first-year cohort, all in an engaging and entertaining way. The results from this two-stage action research project are encouraging. The students participating in this unit have demonstrated explicit linkages between their Monopoly City™ experiences and foundation urban economic and valuation theories. However, student resistance to change and innovative learning practices were evident. Key success factors identified when implementing such teaching innovations include: adequate preparation time, use of a "play-share-reflect" component, an ice-breaker activity, a leader board and a novelty factor to keep students interested.

Daniel J Mallinson
Erin O'Hanlon

Background. Caregivers in human services fields operate within a space between their clients and the larger social forces that shape clients' lives. Empathetic practitioners should learn to identify both personal circumstances and larger systemic forces (e.g., economic inequality) beyond their control that influence patients' circumstances. Aim. This article presents a novel two-phase simulation that can be beneficial for increasing empathy and policy knowledge among pre-practitioners in a variety of human service fields. Method. We use a mixed-method design to evaluate the impact of a pilot study (n=9) of the simulation. First, pre-, mid-, and post-event surveys are used in conjunction with t-tests to determine changes in overall empathy and knowledge. Second, we use feedback from the first-phase debriefing and end-of-program focus groups to identify emergent themes. Learners role play a state legislator or interest group and must develop legislation to address shortages in physicians and nurses. Result. We found evidence of increased knowledge of the policymaking process and understanding of how politics relates to individual healthcare access challenges. Evidence of gains in empathy were not apparent from the quantitative measures, but were expressed in participant debriefing. Conclusion. The framework presented is flexible enough to adapt and be implemented for a variety of policy problems across a diverse array of human service fields. It shows promise in raising knowledge and potentially empathy.

LAND RUSH is a board game that allows participants to critically assess the ways in which different social classes face both opportunities and constraints in securing land rights and in managing the acquired land sustainably in an extremely competitive environment. The game illustrates three characteristics of contemporary land dynamics in an altering world. First, the logics of smallholder farmers are largely oriented towards risk diversification, and often contrast with those of current agrarian policies of most international and national policy makers, oriented towards maximal production and commercialization. Second, the rules of the game in the land arena are not uniformly defined, but are characterized by a reality of legal pluralism. Third, access to or exclusion from land is the result of a negotiation process in which actors with unequal power relations interact and compete with each other. Better-off actors have a comparative advantage in negotiations over land rights. However, poorer actors still exert agency, although in constrained ways.

Catherine L. Coghlan
Denise Huggins

Social stratification may be one of the most difficult topics covered in sociology classes. This article describes an interactive learning exercise, using a modified version of the game Monopoly, intended to stress the structural nature of social inequality and to stimulate student reflection and class discussion on social stratification in the United States. The primary focus of this exercise is to help students experience different levels of social stratification and to challenge the idea that individual talents or aspirations are enough to overcome structural barriers to upward class mobility. Student reactions to the experience suggest that it is an effective tool for demonstrating the structural nature of social inequality in the United States and for stimulating discussion on social inequality and related topics. This exercise has worked well in introductory sociology, social problems, and social inequality classes.

Posted by: berthaberthadercolee0268031.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258184357_Development_monopoly_A_simulation_game_on_poverty_and_inequality