Prospect theory in the wild: how good is the nonexperimental evidence for prospect theory?

ABSTRACT

Prospect theory is widely thought to be one of the best-confirmed accounts of human decision-making under risk. There are numerous claims in the literature that various kinds of nonexperimental, observational evidence provide strong support for prospect theory. We investigate the veracity of these claims using a set of philosophy of science morals and a careful delineation of models of choice under risk, focussing on the extant versions of prospect theory and their various components. We challenge the claim that prospect theory is well supported because it explains the equity premium puzzle. In addition, we analyse a major international survey thought to support prospect theory and argue that the support is questionable, both for statistical reasons and because the evidence itself is mixed. Our analyses highlight some important ideas in the philosophy of science and caution against strong claims about support for prospect theory that rely on nonexperimental, observational evidence.     

Subjective beliefs and economic preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic

Experimental Economics - The COVID-19 pandemic presents a remarkable opportunity to put to work all of the research that has been undertaken in past decades on the elicitation and structural...     

Military Spending, Government Disarray, and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Analysis

Recent years have seen a spate of empirical studies that have used cross-country regressions to examine a variety of possible determinants of long-term economic growth. The present study considers an additional, largely overlooked, explanatory variable: military spending. Consistent with Thompson’s (1974) hypothesis that enhanced national defense fosters economic growth by increasing the security of property rights, the military expenditures share of GDP is found to have a statistically significant positive impact on the growth rate of per capita GDP. This result is obtained for two alternative model specifications, a Barro-regression and a LISREL variant of that regression. The LISREL variant is motivated by Sala-i-Martin’s (1994) claim that the impact of government economic policies jointly, rather than extant government policies individually and separately, is "the phenomenon that really matters" for long-term economic growth.     

Self-Fulfilling Debt Crises

We characterize the values of government debt and the debt's maturitystructure under which financial crises brought on by a loss of confidence inthe government can arise within a dynamic, stochastic general equilibriummodel. We also characterize the optimal policy response of the government tothe threat of such a crisis. We show that when the country's fundamentalsplace it inside the crisis zone, the government may be motivated to reduceits debt and exit the crisis zone because this leads to an economic boom anda reduction in the interest rate on the government's debt. We show thatthis reduction can be gradual if debt is high or the probability of a crisisis low. We also show that, while lengthening the maturity of the debt canshrink the crisis zone, credibility-inducing policies can have perverseeffects.     

Why hierarchies thrive

Hardly anyone has a good word to say about hierarchies. Academics, consultants, and management gurus regularly forecast their imminent replacement because hierarchies--even when populated by considerate and intelligent people--can be cruel and stupid. They routinely transform motivated and loyal employees into disaffected Dilberts. It's no wonder that we continue to search for more humane and productive alternatives to them. Yet the intensity with which we struggle against hierarchies only serves to highlight their durability. Hierarchy, it seems, may be intrinsic not only to the natural world but also to our own natures. In this article, organizational behavior expert Harold J. Leavitt presents neither a defense of human hierarchies nor another attack on them. Instead, he offers a reality check, a reminder that hierarchy remains the basic structure of most, if not all, large, ongoing human organizations. That's because although they are often depicted as being out of date, hierarchies have proved to be extraordinarily adaptive. Over the past 50 years, for example, they have co-opted the three major managerial movements--human relations, analytic management, and communities of practice. Hierarchies also persist because they deliver real practical and psychological value, and they fulfill our deep need for order and security. Despite the good they may do, hierarchies are inevitably authoritarian. That authoritarianism shows up in all kinds of ways and influences everything in organizations, particularly communication. In multilevel organizations, for instance, messages get distorted as they travel up and down the ladder of command. Self-protection and self-interest weigh in, and relevant information is lost as messages make stops along the route. Sensitive leaders take steps to make speaking the truth as painless as possible. But it never is in organizations, because authoritarianism is an immutable element of hierarchy.