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.     

Orthodox Core–Heterodox Periphery? Contrasting Citation Networks of Economics Departments in Vienna

ABSTRACT

The notion of an ‘orthodox core–heterodox periphery’ structure and the extent of interdisciplinary links have been widely discussed, and partially investigated bibliometrically, within economic discourse. We extend this research by applying tools from social network analysis to citation data of three economics departments located in Vienna, two mainstream and one non-mainstream, to assess their relative citation patterns. We show that both mainstream economics departments follow the asserted core–periphery pattern and have a mono-disciplinary research focus, while the citation network of the non-mainstream department has a polycentric structure and is both more heterodox and interdisciplinary. These findings suggest that discussions about the future of heterodox economics should pay more attention to the organizational level and seek allies from other disciplines.     

A Model of the Relative Income Hypothesis

James Duesenberry's (1949) relative income hypothesis holds substantial empirical credibility, as well as a rich set of implications. Although present in the pages of leading economics journals, the hypothesis has become all but foreign to the blackboards of economics classrooms. To help reintegrate the concept into the undergraduate economics curriculum, the author constructs a model of the relative income hypothesis to present a few of its important properties and implications. Negative spending externalities, the effect of public provision taxes on wasteful spending races, and the Pareto implications of universal income growth are illustrated within a two-good consumption space as a method of introducing this rich literature to a greater number of introductory and intermediate economics students.     

The Normative Problem of Merit Goods in Perspective

Abstract

In his Theory of Public Finance (1959), Musgrave invented the concept of merit wants to describe public wants that are satisfied by goods provided by the government in violation of the principle of consumer sovereignty. Starting from Musgrave’s mature discussion (1987), I construct two categories to classify the explanations of merit goods. The first strand of thought attempts to justify merit goods within the New welfare economics, by modifying its assumptions to accommodate irrationality, uncertainty, lack of information, and psychic externalities. The second category encompasses more radical departures from consumer sovereignty, drawn from philosophical critiques of economics. In the third part of the paper, I argue that the two strands might be represented by a non-individualistic social welfare function. I also show how this solution echoes Musgrave’s early views on public expenditures before he coined the concept of merit wants. From an historical perspective, the survival of the concept highlights the persistence of a social point of view in welfare economics.     

Two-tier rationality and reflexivity: an examination of the foundations of economic reason

This paper develops a two-tier concept of rationality which broadens the orthodox notion of instrumental rationality in economics. In the first section, I conceive the idea of “background rationality” to consist in the ability to act normally, i.e., according to social conventions appropriate to the context. Background rationality is a necessary condition for the exercise of its instrumental counterpart. Implications and applications of this for economic phenomena are investigated in Section II. The third section draws parallels between the approach to rationality developed in this paper and Thorstein Veblen's notion “habits of thought”. I argue that a viable concept of rationality must itself be subject to explanatory scrutiny and justification and not merely posited as given.     

Prediction versus accommodation in economics

ABSTRACT

Should we insist on prediction, i.e. on correctly forecasting the future? Or can we rest content with accommodation, i.e. empirical success only with respect to the past? I apply general considerations about this issue to the case of economics. In particular, I examine various ways in which mere accommodation can be sufficient, in order to see whether those ways apply to economics. Two conclusions result. First, an entanglement thesis: the need for prediction is entangled with the methodological role of orthodox economic theory. Second, a conditional predictivism: if we are not committed to orthodox economic theory, then (often) we should demand prediction rather than accommodation – against most current practice.     

Futures We Are In

The economics literature includes several critiques of the dominant utilitarian position, as respectively offered by Posner (1979), Rawls (1971), Sen (1987) and institutionalist followers of John Dewey. There is also now a rapidly growing literature on the economics of happiness. Another quite distinctive position of social importance on these issues is provided by Joseph Ratzinger, also known as Pope Benedict XVI. It offers an alternative conception of ontology and teleology, and reflects conceptions of freedom, happiness, man and rationality different from those found in orthodox economics, and different too from those found in the above-mentioned critiques. It intersects with recent writings of Lawson (2003), Nelson (2010) and Tilman (2008).

In order to promote critical scrutiny of the a priori positions embedded in contending schools of economic thought, it follows that the implications of this Ratzinger critique should be consciously confronted by economists, including institutionalists, with whom various starting points are shared.     

The diversity of models as a means to better explanations in economics

ABSTRACT

In Economics Rules, Rodrik [(2015). Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press] argues that what makes economics powerful despite the limitations of each and every model is its diversity of models. Rodrik suggests that the diversity of models in economics improves its explanatory capacities, but he does not fully explain how. I offer a clearer picture of how models relate to explanations of particular economic facts or events, and suggest that the diversity of models is a means to better economic explanations.     

Richard H. Thaler: A Nobel Prize for Behavioural Economics

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of Richard Thaler’s career and the contributions to behavioural economics that earned him the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It focuses on his role in exposing and making sense of empirical anomalies in orthodox economics, his analysis of mental accounting, and his work with Cass Sunstein on the notion of libertarian paternalism and the ‘nudge’-based behavioural approach to economic policy. It then considers his contributions critically and explores how, unlike previous behavioural economics, Thaler succeeded in getting his new approach to behavioural economics accepted by mainstream economists.     

Social Provisioning within a Culture-Nature Life Process

Abstract

Social provisioning is an amalgamation of social processes within a broader culture-nature life process. This article contributes to the literature on developing the concept of ‘social provisioning' and explores its scope by presenting theoretical and methodological contexts for social provisioning. Then it delineates three categories of processes: biological and geographical processes, processes that are usually analyzed as personal characteristics or social categories (e.g., gender), and processes defined around social activities (e.g., consumption). The system of processes presented allows for diverse entry points to an analysis of social provisioning beyond consumption, production and distribution. Further, the system of processes transcends the culture-economy, nature-economy, nature-culture and micro-macro dualisms in heterodox economic theory.     

Optimal Tax and Public Investment Rules for Congestion Type of Externalities

Optimal government policy is considered in a second-best framework where consumers and producers cause an externality of the congestion type and income distribution issues are taken into account. The theoretical results of the optimal tax literature are adapted using the concept of the net social Pigouvian tax. An illustrative AGE model uncovers the relative importance of its components. The model demonstrates that the level of the externality tax does not depend strongly on distribution concerns, as reoptimization of the other taxes ensures that the income distribution objective is reached. The model also allows us to study the interaction between externality taxes and public abatement.     

The ‘Americanisation’ of West German economics after the Second World War: Success,failure, or something completely different?

Abstract

The paper examines the intellectual and structural change that German economics experienced after the Second World War. This development often was described as ‘Americanisation’, since it seemed to rest upon the influences of the American occupation regime. In contrast, the paper applies another meaning of ‘Americanisation’. It is considered a ‘discourse’ that serves to structure the disciplinary procedures to produce progress. As it can be shown by the adoption of Keynesianism and neoclassical microeconomics, the change of the discipline was not primarily driven by direct American influences. Rather, in some respect the German reception took a path of its own. That contradiction can be solved by a theoretical modification of the classical concept of ‘Americanisation’. ‘Americanisation’ there meant a change of the operational procedure of German economics to generate progress.     

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.     

Are Social Costs the Outcome of Struggles over Truth?

Abstract:

This article critically examines the institutional economics theory of social costs by way of reviewing The Dark Places of Business Enterprise: Reinstating Social Costs in Institutional-Economics (2019). In particular, the article assesses the proposal to re-root institutional economics in the theoretical synthesis of “Veblen-Kapp-Mirowski” to better understand the social costs of neoliberalism. One of the findings is that while such a synthesis seems justified on the grounds of significant commonalities and the merits of deeper insights, it nevertheless runs into difficulties due to divergent philosophical foundations. One of the conclusions is that further philosophic clarification is needed on how an alternative economy would understand the relationship between “social costs” and Truth.     

现代经济学中人性假设的心理学基础及其问题——“经济人”假设与“为己利他”行为机理的比较

现代主流经济学的经济人假设以早期还原主义心理学为理论基础,它仅仅反映了动物性的本能需求而忽视了人类的社会性;因此,它不仅无法揭示无形的手来自何处以及如何运作,也无法根本上理解囚徒困境与现实相悖的现象。相反为己利他行为机理则以新近人本主义心理学为理论基础,它将人类基于动物性的本能目的和基于社会性的实现手段结合起来;因此,它可以更好地挖掘无形的手是如何运作而实现社会协调,从而是比经济人假设更合理、有效的人性抽象。     

THEORY OF THE STATE, GOVERNMENT TAX AND PURCHASING POLICY, AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION

Until recently, there has been virtually no discussion among professional economists of the impact of government expenditures on the distribution of income.¹ Neoclassical economics has traditionally shown little interest in distributional issues. Little is said beyond the assumption that factors are paid their marginal products. Micro economics is said to take a “neutral” stance with regard to distributional issues. Static efficiency of allocation is attainable for any income distribution, and consequently, so the parable goes, no income distribution is superior on purely economic grounds to any other. Macro economics also purports to be neutral with respect to distribution. Government expenditures in Keynes' model appear as an undifferentiated blob called “G”. The only interest macro economics takes in distribution issues is concerned with the marginal effect of redistribution on the marginal propensity to consume out of income. Keynesian economics, therefore, is unable to say whether one form of government expenditure is superior to another so long as both accomplish macro objectives. When orthodox economists have approached the issue of the government's distributional impact, they have until recently focused solely on its use of taxes and transfer payments. Public finance has traditionally ignored the expenditure side of state activity since, after all, government activity was a necessary evil, benefiting no one. Gillespie's path-breaking study in 1965 finally acknowledged the utility of government spending, but his analysis and those that have followed in the orthodox tradition have been hampered by a number of awkward premises. First, the orthodox studies of fiscal incidence implicitly accept the view of the government as a neutral arbiter rather than a protagonist of the dominant classes in society. Second, benefits of government services are assumed to be accurately measured by outlays. Thus, if we find that the government spends four times as much on highways as on police, it is assumed that the utility of highways is four times that of police even though one cannot even imagine the continuity of the status quo without the police while many responsible citizens argue that we should drastically curtail outlays on roads. Obviously, the utility of the police in terms of system maintenance exceeds that of the more expensive highway expenditures. Third, it is assumed that for each dollar spent by the government, only one person will benefit when, in fact, many disparate groups can benefit from the same expenditure. A dollar spent on education benefits the student as well as hislher employer. Fourth, Gillespie and his orthodox followers ignore any effect of the government on the pre-tax, pre-transfer distribution of income which they take as given. A hypothesis which we examine in this paper is that the government has an enormous influence over the shape of the pre-tax, pre-transfer income distribution. A more general criticism of previous studies of fiscal incidence is that they suffer from a poorly defined theory of the state. This assertion is most clzarly illustrated by the categorization in previous studies of a wide variety of public exp-enditures as “public goods” (such as national military expenditures). The benefits of these “public goods” are allocated among various income groups in several ways, for example on the basis of wealth ownership (both productive and consumptive) or on a per capita basis. The method of allocation chosen has enormous consequences for one's estimate of overall fiscal incidence. According to Herriot and Miller, those with incomes over $50,000 either receive a net benefit of 4.5 percent of their total income from the government or lose 42.1 percent, depending upon the allocation formula chosen for public goods. Previous studies have taken an agnostic position with respect to the appropriateness of the several allocative assumptions. But this is merely simple empiricism without theoreticai foundation, and thus the formulation of specific hypotheses which employ scientific procedures is impossible. What is needed to provide an interpretation of the data is a well-articulated theory of the state-an area to which we turn our attention in the next section of this paper.     

A vertical social accounting matrix of the U.S. economy

Abstract

This article presents an adaptation of the square social accounting matrix used in economic planning and programming to the rectangular or vertical transaction matrix used in post Keynesian monetary economics. The objective is to obtain a simple and intuitive framework to organize macroeconomic data in terms of the main institutional sectors of the economy, showing how production, distribution, demand, and financing are inter-related. The article presents the social accounting matrix of the U.S. economy as an example and use it to analyze the trends in net lending and household net income since 1960.     

Thorstein Veblen as Evolutionary Feminist Economist of the Progressive Era

Abstract

Just prior to the turn of the twentieth century, Thorstein Veblen advanced an evolutionary approach to feminist economics. A host of scholars considered in this inquiry are noted to have endorsed and also furthered his tradition. What distinguishes Veblen’s evolutionary approach to feminist economics is that he emphasizes that the roots of private property can be related to women being taken captive through warfare during the Age of Savagery. Instincts affecting behavior are viewed as relative constants, but which take on an evolutionary character when considered against what Veblen defines as four stages of social and economic development.     

Enrico Barone's ‘Ministry of Production’: Content and Context

Abstract

Enrico Barone's famous article on economic planning, ‘Il Ministro della Produzione nello Stato Collettivista’ (‘The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State’), which showed the theoretical possibility of an economically efficient collectivist planned economy, was published in Giornale degli Economisti in 1908. Barone's article has been widely cited, particularly in the comparative economic systems literature, but it has not been very widely read or analysed in recent years, and there is not much literature that places Barone's ‘Ministry’ model in the context of his other works or in its historical, social, or ideological context. The aims of this article are: (a) to analyse and clarify Barone's model in depth; (b) to place it in the context of Barone's other writings and the literature on the subject; and (c) to examine the apparent contradiction between Barone's hostility to socialism and his attempt to formulate the pure theory of the collectivist economy.     

基于演化博弈的和谐社会构建模型分析

经济学在社会科学中的主导性地位决定了经济和谐是和谐社会构建的基础。以"理性经济人"假设为基础的正统经济理论与和谐社会的本质内容存在着一定程度的差异性,因而不能够为和谐社会的存在性构建起科学的理论体系,而行为经济学为和谐社会的实现提供了现实性的理论依据。互惠性偏好是行为经济学的基础性假设之一,基于互惠性偏好的个体行为博弈可以改善博弈双方的经济利益,从而为演化博弈环境下群体经济行为从自利型向互惠型的演化创造了条件,最终为经济学视角下和谐社会微观经济理论体系的构建提供了坚实的理论基础。