Why do scientists cheat? Insights from behavioral economics

Abstract

Based on a review of the books by Wible (2014), Stephan (2012), and Lanteri and Vromen (2014), I discuss three different ways in which behavioral economics can enrich the understanding of scientific misbehavior. First, behavioral economics suggests that economic theories of scientific misbehavior, such as the one by Wible (2014), should consider moral costs of cheating, i.e. costs that arise from an individual’s desire to do the “right thing.” Second, behavioral economics demonstrates several ways in which the features of the reward scheme in science,as described by Stephan (2012), can favor cheating. Her conclusion that shirking is rarely an issue in science seems optimistic. Third, behavioral economics indicates that individual characteristics matter for cheating. According to Lanteri and Vromen (2014), economists possess different characteristics than other researchers. Hence, the reaction to incentives may differ across disciplines. Considering these insights is important to assess how a goal such as the pursuit of truth can be achieved efficiently.     

Commodity Prices and the New Inflation

The intention of the article is to explore trends in economics and sociology, as well as other science disciplines, like history, psychology and anthropology, and investigate the interdisciplinary exchanges that have taken place, leading to convergences and divergences between academic subjects. The “imperialism of economics” is increasingly approaching traditional academic fields of history, psychology, and sociology. However, the article concludes that sociology’s public reputation may have declined, while simultaneously economics is shifting its attention to the social dimension of economic behavior and moving toward the other social sciences; a process which has been coined “social-scienciation.” The argument is that those developments can also be seen as chances to upgrade the social sciences “around” economics. The described process also aligns with recent talk about a need for interdisciplinary studies when this article adopts a different take on the issues of interdisciplinarity and embeddedness.     

Epistemology and the tasks of feminist economics

This paper examines the implications of current epistemological debates for the work of feminist economists. Feminist economists must acknowledge (in accordance with recent developments in the study of science) that (a) inquirers can never be certain whether claims about the world are true; (b) scientific inquiry is permeated with “internal” and “external” values; and (c) beliefs are affected by inquirers' social locations. But feminists should not, it argues, embrace the “relativist” stance of some postmodern thinkers, or reject the ideal of “truth,” or argue that beliefs are strictly determined by inquirers' identities and interests. It seeks to outline an epistemological “middle ground” for feminist economics, between the extremes of exaggerated claims of certainty and a disempowering relativism.     

Author׳s gender affects rating of academic articles: Evidence from an incentivized,deception-free laboratory experiment

Even though women׳s position in academia has changed dramatically over the last few decades, there is still some evidence that when it comes to evaluation of scientific achievements, gender may play a significant role. Gender bias is particularly likely to take the form of statistical discrimination. In this study we sought to verify the hypothesis that researcher׳s gender affects evaluation of his or her work, especially in a field where women only represent a minority. Towards this end we asked a sample of subjects, mostly economics majors, to evaluate a paper written by mixed-gender couples, indicating that it was (co-)authored by a “female economist”, “male economist”, “young female economist” or “young male economist” or giving no information about the author at all. While age factor played no role, female authors appeared to be seen as less competent than males, in that subjects (being incentivized to give their best judgment) less often believed that their papers have been published. This effect did not interact strongly with the gender of the subject.     

Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction

Abstract

Since the screening of Inside Job in movie theatres around the world in 2010, research integrity in economics has been questioned by scholars and public intellectuals. Prestigious economists and policy makers are accused of conflicts of interest while prominent economists are charged with plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Some of these economists replied to accusations about themselves while many others have preferred not to respond at all. These days, economists hear the following question more often than before: “what is wrong with economics?”     

Dualistic Discourse and Immigration Policy

Abstract:

The central question in immigration policy is whether to support less immigration through more “restrictive” laws and procedures or whether to support more immigration through a “relaxation” of existing laws. Recently, however, a second debate has arisen on one side of this debate regarding the appropriate types of arguments that may be used to support “restrictive” immigration. Ross Douthat refers to this dispute as the “race versus economics” question: using “race-based” arguments is not legitimate; while an “economic” or a “fact-based” argument is regarded as legitimate. We argue that this distinction in anti-immigration rhetoric is more apparent than real. Using the two most common historical “tropes” in immigration policy, “criminal” and “worker,” we find that racist, anti-ethnic, and classist assumptions pervade U.S. immigration law and policy and have been far more influential in formulating actual policy than either economic or “fact-based” analysis. The central problem with restrictive immigration policy is that its primary purpose is to determine who is eligible to be an American, and who is not; in other words, immigration policy is, by its fundamental intent, invidious. The question is whether it is possible to exclude individuals on these “legitimate” grounds without relying on “illegitimate” invidious distinctions?     

Five reasons for the use of network analysis in the history of economics

ABSTRACT

Network analysis is increasingly appreciated as a methodology in the social sciences. In recent years, it is also receiving attention among historians of science. History of economics is no exception in that researchers have begun to use network analysis to study a variety of topics, including collaborations and interactions in scientific communities, the spread of economic theories within and across fields, or the formation of new specialties in the discipline of economics. Against this backdrop, a debate is emerging about how network analysis can help address questions that are pertinent to the history of economics. With this paper, we want to push this debate one step forward by offering and discussing five reasons why network analysis should have a future in the history of economics.     

Real-World Economics Today:The New Complexity,Co-ordination and Policy

More realistic economics has to start out from the most basic socio-economic phenomena and processes, i.e. dilemma-prone interdependencies and strong uncertainty among agents that have become ubiquitous phenomena in the world today. In the reality of the “new” economy these are represented by functional and spatial fragmentation of value-added chains, global de-regulation and disembedding of the most powerful economic agents, on one hand, and increasing complexity and high integration of goods and services and net-based tele-IC-technologies on the other hand. All these rather new phenomena entail ubiquitous actual or potential co-ordination failure, either in the form of conventional “market failure”, with a complete mutual blockage of action, or of “wrong” co-ordination, or technological “lock-in”. Both forms are indicative of an insufficient capacity of the co-ordinated action required. In contrast, capability of sustainable innovative action in a broad sense requires new forms of co-ordination beyond “market” and “hierarchy”. Economics thus has to be defined more than ever as a science of effective co-ordination and the generation of innovative and sustainable collective action capacity. The global corporate economy has developed individualist arrangements to cope with that new co-ordination problem, such as local clusters and hub&spoke networks, which all have severe shortcomings. Against this background, the paper develops a setting with ubiquitous direct interdependencies, net-externalities, “strategic” strong uncertainty and ubiquitous (latent) social-dilemma problems. It discusses the possibility of an ideal decentralized and spontaneous co-ordination through emergent institutionalized collective action, specifically of “well-governed” network co-operation. In conclusion, it is argued that only a hybrid system of networks together with a new public policy role, supporting collective learning and emergent institutional co-ordination, i.e. an “interactive” and “institutional” policy approach, is capable of solving the co-ordination problems of the “new” economy.     

科研不端行为处理程序研究——兼评《科研诚信案件调查处理规则（试行）》

2019年9月由科技部等20个部委联合发布的《科研诚信案件调查处理规则（试行）》从整体上构建了科研不端行为调查处理程序，是我国科研诚信建设的里程碑文件，但其并未真正解决调查主体多元、事实问题与学术问题混淆、程序规则公正性欠缺与救济途径缺失等问题。有必要借鉴美国科研不端的规制经验，通过法律程序弥补科学共同体自律约束的不足，在内生机制方面不断完善科研不端处理程序，在外部约束方面通过立法与司法介入倒逼调查部门规范内部调查和处理程序，构建科学共同体自律约束与法律规则外部约束相结合的科研诚信建设体系，从而真正净化学术界和推动“科教兴国”。     

Remembering Joseph M. Becker,S.J.

“Critique” of the Neoclassical paradigm in economics is a vital intellectual contribution in its own right. The prevailing wisdom and last word in economics, enforced by the socializing experiences of young would-be economists, is that if you can’t build a better theory immediately, without resources or access to debate and discussion, you have no right to criticize the existing paradigm, This requirement cuts off challenge and debate in economics, strongly deters the development of alternative theories, and leads to a weaker, less interesting economic science.     

Shifting the paradigm: Value in feminist critiques of economics

“Critique” of the Neoclassical paradigm in economics is a vital intellectual contribution in its own right. The prevailing wisdom and last word in economics, enforced by the socializing experiences of young would-be economists, is that if you can’t build a better theory immediately, without resources or access to debate and discussion, you have no right to criticize the existing paradigm, This requirement cuts off challenge and debate in economics, strongly deters the development of alternative theories, and leads to a weaker, less interesting economic science.     

Methodological interactionism: Theory and application to the firm and to the building of trust

Recent insights from the “embodied cognition” perspective in cognitive science, supported by neural research, provide a basis for a “methodological interactionism” that transcends both the methodological individualism of economics and the methodological collectivism of (some) sociology and is consistent with insights from social psychology. It connects with a Mengerian exchange perspective and Hayekian view of dispersed knowledge from Austrian economics. It provides a basis for a new, unified social science that integrates elements from economics, sociology, social psychology, and cognitive science. This paper discusses the roots of this perspective, in theory of cognition and meaning, and illustrates its application in a summary of a social–cognitive theory of the firm and an analysis of processes by which trust is built up and broken down.     

Statistical significance and scientific misconduct: improving the style of the published research paper

Abstract

A science, business, or law that is basing its validity on the level of p-values, t statistics and other tests of statistical significance is looking less and less relevant and more and more unethical. Today’s economist uses a lot of wit putting a clever index of opportunity cost into his models; but then, like the amnesiac, he fails to see opportunity cost in statistical estimates he makes of those same models. Medicine, psychology, pharmacology and other fields are similarly damaged by this fundamental error of science, keeping bad treatments on the market and good ones out. A few small changes to the style of the published research paper using statistical methods can bring large beneficial effects to more than academic research papers. It is suggested that misuse of statistical significance be added to the definition of scientific misconduct currently enforced by the NIH, NSF, Office of Research Integrity and others.     

Letter from the Editors

The authors explore academic misconduct in various forms and consider the role of student perceptions. They gather data from students in introductory economics courses regarding 31 types of misconduct. They estimate the relevance of various determinants of misconduct, acknowledging that they may vary across misconduct type and that students' perceptions may influence their behavior. Their estimates reveal that although there are determinants that influence student behavior across misconduct type, some types of misconduct have a unique set of determinants. They find that a student's perception of what constitutes misconduct is an important component of this behavioral decision. These results imply that to reduce a particular type of cheating, one must consider its specific determinants and ensure that students believe that the act is misconduct. In addition, students must believe that the probability of being caught is high.     

产军协同、政府科技支持与技术创新效率研究

运用空间数据分析方法，检验产军协同、政府科技支持与技术创新效率在我国省域间的分布格局。研究表明，三者均存在显著的正向空间相关性，即正向空间溢出效应，并且在不同地区形成局部空间集聚，存在高低非均衡的“俱乐部”现象。基于空间误差模型和空间滞后模型，实证检验产军协同、政府科技支持对技术创新效率的影响。结果发现，从全国和分地区看，产军协同、政府科技支持均能够显著促进技术创新效率提升，并且二者存在显著的交互作用，能够发挥彼此间的互补效应，进一步促进技术创新效率提升；不同地区产军协同、政府科技支持对技术创新效率的影响程度存在较大差异，西部地区产军协同、政府科技支持对技术创新效率的促进作用比东部和中部地区显著。     

The fruits of intellectual production: economic and scientific specialisation among OECD countries

This paper brings together data from 17 OECD countries on scientificpublications, patents and production, to explore the relationshipbetween scientific and economic specialisation for 17 manufacturingindustries. Since Marx, there has been a fundamental debatein economics about the link between science and the economicsystem. Marx argued that the needs of production shape scientificdevelopments and that science has become a factor of production,whereas Polanyi argued that developments in science are largelyindependent of the economic sphere. Using a panel data modeland econometric estimations at the industry level, the paperderives some hypotheses from the two positions and finds that,while the overall evidence on the link between national productionand scientific specialisation is mixed, it is important to havehigh levels of relevant to-the-industry scientific strengthper capita in order to be specialised in science-based industries.     

“一带一路”背景下新时代科技创新理论及实践路径探究

以习近平关于科技创新重要论述为核心内容的新时代科技创新理论与“一带一路”理论之间存在科学的内在联系，具有高度的契合性。一方面，新时代科技创新理论作为当前指导我国科技创新活动的重要行动指南，对深入推进“一带一路”建设中的国际科技创新合作发挥着重要指导作用。另一方面，“一带一路”倡议是国际科技创新合作的主要平台，是构建人类科技命运共同体的桥梁。从这个意义上说，没有国际科技创新合作，便没有世界科技命运共同体目标的实现。从战略高度和长远角度看，在新时代科技创新理论指引下，中国倡导的“一带一路”科技创新合作必将成为全球基础科学联合研究、技术创新合作的重要范本和典型，中国也将为世界科技发展与革新作出更大贡献，为人类科技文明发展与进步作出具有中国特色的贡献。     

Is the economics of time and ignorance a “classic”?

A history of economic thought perspective on The Economics of Time and Ignorance reveals that the book rehabilitates some major themes in the Austrian tradition that were all but lost subsequent to the formalist revolution in economics that took place in the middle of the twentieth-century. The book also anticipates some important ideas that were extended and applied in Austrian economics after it was first published. Reviews have claimed that the book was a “classic” and also “original”. The book is too close in a temporal sense to judge whether or not future generations will canonize it as a “classic”. Using Stigler’s criteria as to what constitutes scientific “originality”, it is concluded that, taken as a whole, the book was not original. From the vantage point of the overall discipline of economics, it was a work advancing controversial ideas that would not easily change the beliefs, practices and interests of economists in general but it offered sound reasons for taking the Austrian thought-trajectory more seriously. It would be more fitting to view the authors as providers of many innovations contributing to the mature Austrian economics of the twenty-first century.     

Neuroeconomics: Infeasible and Underdetermined

Advocates of neuroeconomics claim to offer the prospect of creating a “unified behavioral theory” by drawing upon the techniques of neuroscience and psychology and combining them with economic theory. Ostensibly, through the “direct measurement” of our thoughts, economics and social science will be “revolutionized.” Such claims have been subject to critique from mainstream and non-mainstream economists alike. Many of these criticisms relate to measurability, relevance, and coherence. In this article, we seek to contribute to this critical examination by investigating the potential of underdetermination, such as the statement that testing involves the conjunction of auxiliary assumptions, and that consequently it may not be possible to isolate the effect of any given hypothesis. We argue that neuroeconomics is especially sensitive to issues of underdetermination. Institutional economists should be cautious of neuroeconomists’ zeal as they appear to over-interpret experimental findings and, therefore, neuroeconomics may provide a false prospectus seeking to reinforce the nostrums of homo economicus.