A cognition paradigm clash: Simon,situated cognition and the interpretation of bounded rationality

Simon’s notion of bounded rationality is deeply intertwined with his activity as a cognitive psychologist and founder of so-called cognitivism, a mainstream approach in cognitive psychology until the 1980s. Cognitivism, understood as ‘symbolic information processing,’ provided the first cognitive psychology foundation to bounded rationality. Has bounded rationality since then fully followed the development of cognitive psychology beyond symbolic information processing in the post-Simonian era? To answer this question, this paper focuses on Simon’s opposition during the 1990s to a new (paradigmatic) view of cognition called situated cognition, which has since put into question the entire view in cognitive psychology of humans as symbolic information processors. This paper then reads the cognitivism/situated cognition debate through the lens of current bounded rationality research in economics, in order (i) to inquire into whether it has tackled the issues in that controversy; (ii) to envisage possible new foundations for a cognitive psychology-based bounded rationality.     

Behavioural economics: Classical and modern

Abstract

In this paper, the origins and development of behavioural economics, beginning with the pioneering works of Herbert Simon and Ward Edwards, are traced and (critically) discussed. Two kinds of behavioural economics – classical and modern – are attributed, respectively, to the two pioneers. The mathematical foundations of classical behavioural economics are identified, largely, to be in the theory of computation and computational complexity; the mathematical basis for modern behavioural economics is claimed to be a notion of subjective probability. Individually rational economic theories of behaviour, with attempts to broaden – and deepen – the notion of rationality, challenging its orthodox variants, were decisively influenced by these two mathematical underpinnings.     

马克思经济学发现经济危机的社会哲学观和研究方法论——兼论马克思经济学和现代主流经济学的认知差异

马克思经济学比现代主流经济学更容易发现经济危机,主要源于两个基本特征:一是在社会哲学观上坚持矛盾冲突论,从而发现个人理性与集体理性之间的不一致性;二是在研究方法论上采用平均主义分析,从而更适合使用统计材料和历史材料来考察宏观经济的周期性波动。正因如此,马克思经济学能够充分认识到自由市场经济内含的冲突性,并从收入分配角度揭示了经济危机的内在根源;相应地,解决经济危机的根本措施就是,改变不合理的收入分配制度。     

经济学中的行为研究

经济学的行为研究总的来说遵循由隐含的、先验的幕后假设逐步走向台前的路径.以对主流经济学的经济人行为假设的修正为起点,行为研究的枝蔓逐渐扩散开来,并在行为经济学、实验经济学和制度经济学等分支中扎根,从多角度认识经济行为的细微末节,将经济学研究推向更为微观的领域,逐步实现向有限理性的真实经济活动面貌回归.     

Holding back from theory: limits and methodological alternatives of randomized field experiments in development economics

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we critically and constructively examine the methodology of evidence-based development economics, which deploys randomized field experiments (RFEs) as its main tool. We describe the context in which this movement started, and illustrate in detail how RFEs are designed and implemented in practice, drawing on a series of experiments by Pascaline Dupas and her colleagues on the use of bednets, saving and governance in Kenya. We show that this line of experiments have evolved to address the limitation of obtaining policy-relevant insights from RFEs alone, characterized as their lack of external validity in the literature. After examining the two prominent responses by leading figures of evidence-based development economics, namely machine learning and structured speculation, we propose an alternative methodological strategy that incorporates two sub-fields, namely experimental economics and behavioral economics, to complement RFEs in investigating the data-generating process underlying the treatment effects of RFEs. This strategy highlights promising methodological developments in RFEs neither captured by the two proposals nor recognized by methodologists, and also guides how to combine different sub-fields of economics.     

The Status of Econometrics in the Economics Major: A Survey

In this article, the authors describe the place of econometrics in undergraduate economics curricula in all American colleges and universities that offer economics majors as listed in the U.S. News & World Report “Best Colleges 2010” guide (U.S. News & World Report 2009). Data come from online catalogs, departmental Web sites, and online course syllabi. About one-third of the schools require econometrics of all students majoring in economics, about half require it of none, and a sixth require it of some, but not all, economics majors. Among universities with economics PhD programs and liberal arts colleges, almost all those ranked in the top 10 require it. Below the top 10, there is little correlation between ranking and econometrics requirements. Liberal arts econometrics classes are much more likely to require research projects than their counterparts in universities.     

Conceptions of property rights and norms

The social norm literature in law and economics fails to account for the differences between the two major conceptions of property rights. The differences between the two conceptions affect people’s utility function by affecting how increases in property rights are perceived. This paper discusses how the modern, in rem, conception evolved from an older, in personam, conception; it also discusses how economics has absorbed the modern, in rem, conception. The paper demonstrates that if people do not perceive the benefits of modern property rights, they will follow their social norms if the government or planner imposes modern property rights on them. In the end, this allows one to make a fuller discussion of why norms economize information. This discussion has various consequences ranging from developmental economics to financial market economics and cannot be ignored.

Normative ecological rationality: normative rationality in the fast-and-frugal-heuristics research program

The purpose of this paper is to examine the normative interpretation of the fast-and-frugal research program and in particular to contrast it with the normative reading of rational choice theory and behavioral economics. The ecological rationality of fast-and-frugal heuristics is admittedly a form of normative naturalism (Gigerenzer and Sturm 2012) – it derives what agents “ought” to do from that which “is” ecologically rational – and the paper will examine how this differs from the normative rationality associated with rational choice theory. I will also attempt to assess the relative adequacy of normative ecological rationality.     

The Legal-Economic Nexus from the Perspective of New Institutional Economists and Original Institutional Economists

There are two institutional economics approaches to law and economics. New institutional economists prescribe that arbitrators foster efficiency in setting economic disputes and original institutional economists focus on creating reasonable values – that is, balancing efficiency and justice. Disequilibrium between desired efficiency and perceived fairness triggers agency and is a source of coevolution of law and economics.     

Philosophy of Economics Rules: introduction to the symposium

ABSTRACT

Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.     

How modern economics learned French: Jacques Drèze and the foundation of CORE

The Center of Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), founded in 1966, was one of the channels through which economic modelling practices were imported from the USA to Europe. Officially modelled after the Cowles Foundation for Economics Research, it reflected Jacques Drèze's broad experiences in the USA during the 1950s when modelling techniques were not yet anchored in disciplines. CORE gained an international reputation, however, through the rather exclusive community of Neo-Walrasian economists represented by Werner Hildenbrand, Jean Gabszewicz, and Gérard Debreu. After this community modified the disciplinary divisions at CORE, the influence of CORE on continental economics occurred mainly through disequilibrium economics, which still represents a “French accent” in modern macroeconomics. At the same time, operations research and econometrics prospered at CORE while receiving scant attention from economists. This essay tells the story of how CORE changed continental economics through the unique career path of its founder, Jacques Drèze.     

Is ‘new’ behavioral economics ‘mainstream’?

When comparing ‘new’ and ‘old’ behavioral economics (BE), many argue that ‘new’ BE has close ties with what is often called ‘mainstream’ economics. The aim of this paper is to reframe the ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ BE debate and investigate the nature of the relationship between psychologists, behavioral economists, and ‘mainstream’ economists. This will lead us to develop the concept of ‘space of interaction’, building on Galison’s metaphor of ‘trading zones’, to emphasize the role of outsiders, strategic thinking, and negotiation in ‘new’ BE. By discussing some often implicit arguments in an otherwise disconnected literature, we seek to bring new arguments to the discussions through a careful study of those relationships in the history of ‘new’ BE and its more recent developments. Leaving aside the orthodox/heterodox contrast and comparative approaches, we hope to provide a different account of the changes in ‘new’ BE and its relationship with the ‘mainstream’.     

创新发展中国特色社会主义政治经济学需处理好十个方面的关系

中国特色社会主义政治经济学是当代中国经济学的理论基础,是理论经济学与应用经济学相关学科的"硬核"部分。创新发展中国特色社会主义政治经济学需要处理好若干重要的关系,例如价值理性与工具理性的关系、马克思主义政治经济学原理与中国特色社会主义实践的关系、马克思主义政治经济学原理与中国特色社会主义政治经济学的关系、文本研究与实证分析的关系、问题导向与理论抽象的关系、政治经济学与西方经济学的关系、政治经济学与经济史学的关系、政治经济学与经济思想史的关系、政治经济学与应用经济学的关系、政治经济学研究与政治经济学叙事的关系,等等。     

The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy

This paper examines change on the economics research frontier,and asks whether the current competition between new researchprogrammes may be supplanted by a new single dominant approachin the future. The paper discusses whether economics tends tobe dominated by a single approach or reflect a pluralism ofapproaches, and argues that, historically, it has alternatedbetween the two. It argues that orthodoxy usually emerges fromheterodoxy, and interprets the division between orthodoxy andheterodoxy in terms of a core–periphery distinction. Regardingrecent economics, the paper maps out two different types ofcombinations of new research programmes as being synchronicor diachronic in nature. It treats the new research programmesas a new kind of heterodoxy, and asks how a new orthodoxy mightarise out of this new heterodoxy and traditional heterodoxy.It discusses this question by advancing two views regardinghow to different types of combinations in the new research programmesmight consolidate along the lines of three shared commitmentswith traditional heterodoxy to form a new orthodoxy in economics.     

Change and Continuity

Although there is considerable evidence that efforts to teach economic concepts to elementary school children are increasing, little research is being done at this level. William Walstad's article is, then, one of those rare pieces that reports the results of a controlled study in the elementary grades. In addition, it includes a discussion of research design and statistical techniques, and considers some of the problems one encounters in this type of research (such as problems in parameter estimation). The author measured the effects of a teacher in-service program that provided instruction in economics as applied to the Unified Sciences and Mathematics for Elementary School program. The new Test of Economic Literacy was administered to the teachers, while their pupils took the Test of Elementary Economics. Control groups were also tested. Pupil attitudes toward economics were measured, and it was found that achievement in economics had a direct influence on attitude toward economics. Walstad concludes that “teachers and students gain substantial benefits from the in-service program in practical economic problem solving.”     

Gordon Tullock and Richard McKenzie. The New World of Economics.

The authors extend the literature on the efficacy of high school economics instruction in two directions. First, they assess how much economic knowledge that California students acquired in their compulsory high school course is retained on their entering college. Second, using as a control group some college students from the state of Washington, where there is no mandate for high school economics instruction, the authors evaluate the impact of California's high school economics mandate on students’ economic literacy when they enter college. The testing instrument is the Test of Economic Literacy (TEL).     

Emergence versus neoclassical reductions in economics

ABSTRACT

Many epistemic anomalies of the neoclassical research programme originate from its ontologically reductionist meta-axioms, which predicate how economic macro-systems are constituted from their micro-entities and how the latter behave – namely atomistic aggregativity, normative equilibration and global instrumental rationality. This paper explores the metaphysical foundations of the premise of emergence and argues that it can be a remedy to the ills of neoclassical reductions, and a foundational epistemic principle in a progressive systemic research programme in economics, which would bridge existing streams of ‘heterodox’ economic theory.     

A matter of opinion—How ecological and neoclassical environmental economists and think about sustainability and economics

The differing paradigms of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics have been described in various articles and books and are also embedded in different professional associations. However, we cannot take for granted that the paradigm debates described in the literature are actually mirrored in exactly the same way in the perceptions and opinions of researchers looking at sustainability from an economic perspective. This paper presents empirical results from a German case study on how economists and others involved in sustainability research from different schools of thought think about the issues of sustainability and economics, how they group around these issues, how they feel about the current scientific divide, and what they expect to be future topics of sustainability research.We analyze the data using cluster analysis. Based on a literature survey, we generated forty sustainability economics-related statements and asked 196 sustainability researchers about their degree of agreement or disagreement with these statements. In evaluating our survey results, we discuss to what extent the clusters that we identified do—or do not—represent the two schools of thought of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics. We also propose some fields of research that can help to bridge the gaps amongst sustainability economics researchers while clearly marking others that are more suitable for a scientific ‘competition of ideas’. Key results of the study are: We identify two primary scientific clusters, one clearly confirming the existence of the ecological-economics school of thought, and the other largely capturing the neoclassical environmental view. Yet, there are some surprising exceptions: Both schools of thought share a conceptual definition of sustainability that is integrative in considering ecological, societal and economic dimensions (‘three pillar concept’) and is geared at preserving the development potentials of society. We also find a shared critique of ‘pure economic growth’ strategies in our sample. These shared opinions may provide bridging concepts between the schools of thought. Also both clusters agree with respect to a wide range of future fields of sustainability economics research. Yet, the research agenda of the ecological-economics cluster contains a large number of additional topics, primarily related to social, distributional and evolutionary aspects of sustainable development. Strong divides between the clusters that seem to be more suitable for a scientific competition of ideas are primarily related to the question of how to achieve sustainability, including appropriate environmental policies.