| Abstract: | This article provides a rejoinder to Ross Gittins’ commentary on the potential contributions of psychology and behavioural economics to public policy formation. It includes three main arguments. First, that behavioural economics is not a new approach to doing economics, but instead is best seen as a way of enriching ‘conventional economics’ (using Gittins’ terminology). Second, that behavioural economics is not a panacea. Not all aspects of economic activity need psychology to be understood and behavioural economics has limitations. Third, that the failings of conventional economics are not as severe as Gittins suggests. |
