The Homo Economicus Under Experimental Attack

Schlicht, Ekkehart (2020): The Homo Economicus Under Experimental Attack. Discussion Papers in Economics 2020-4

Abstract

For non-economists, it is often difficult to understand why economists place so much emphasis on the self-interest motive. It is obvious that people act out of a variety of motives - gratitude, anger, social obligation and many, many other motives.

There are several reasons why economists still put the self-interest motive in the foreground. Three points of view seem particularly important:

- homo economicus as a useful approximation - homo economicus as an ideal type - homo oeconomicus as as-if construction

These justifications for the self-interest or homo-economicus assumption are briefly characterized.. It is explained why these justifications cannot be empirically disproved. Only their relevance can be questioned. Subsequently, the evolutionary point of view that underlies the as-if defense of homo economicus is radicalized and it is argued that it is appropriate to approach norm formation theoretically and experimentally from a psychological point of view.

• Item Type: Paper
• Keywords: behavioral economics; rational choice; evolutionary economics; anomalies; bounded rationality; institutional economics; norm erosion
• Faculties: Economics > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics; Economics > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics > Behavioral Economics; Economics > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics > Institutional Economics
• Subjects: 300 Social sciences > 300 Social sciences, sociology and anthropology; 300 Social sciences > 330 Economics
• JEL Classification: D9, B13, B15, D01
• ISBN: 978-3801705848
• Language: English

References

Alchian, A. 1950, „Uncertainty, Evolution and Economic Theory”, Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), S. 211-221.

Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992, The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, New York: Oxford University Press.

Camic, C. 1986, “The Matter of Habit”. American Journal of Sociology, 91, S. 139-187.

Conlisk, J. 1996, “Why Bounded Rationality?”, Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), S. 669-700.

Duesenberry, J. 1949, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

Friedman, M. 1957, A Theory of the Consumption Function, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frey, B. & R. Eichenberger 1994, “Economic Incentives Transform Psychological Anomalies”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23(2), S. 215-34.

Literaturverzeichnis

Akerlof, G. 1982, “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543-69.

Alchian, A. A. 1950, „Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory“, Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), S. 211-221.

Austin, W. & E. Hatfield (1980), “Equity Theory, Power, and Social Justice”, in G. Mikula (Hg.), Justice and Social Interaction, New York: Springer, S. 25-61.

Barkow, J. H., L. Cosmiders & J. Tooby (Hg.), The Adapted Mind, New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Becker, G. S. 1962, “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory”, Journal of Political Economy, 70, 1-13.

Blume, L., & D. Easley 1998, “Evolution and Market Behavior”, Journal of Economic Theory, 58(1), S. 9-40.

Brown, M., A. Falk & E. Fehr 2002, “Contractual Incompleteness and the Natureof Market Interactions“, Manuskript, Universität Zürich.

Cheung, S. N. S. 1969, The Theory of Share Tenancy, Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress.

Coase, R. 1984, “The New Institutional Economics”, Journal of Institutionaland Theoretical Economics, 140(1), 229-31.

Elwell, Frank 1996, Verstehen: Max Weber’s Home Page.http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm#Ideal

Fehr, E, S. Gächter & G. Kirchsteiger 1996, “Reciprocal Fairness and Noncompensating Wage Differentials”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152(4), 608-640.

Fehr, E. & K. Schmidt 1999, “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3), 817-868.

Frey, B. & R. Eichenberger 1989, „Anomalies and Institutions“, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics; 145(3 423-37.

Frey, B. & R. Eichenberger 1994, “Economic Incentives Transform Psychological Anomalies”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 23(2), 215-34.

Friedman, M. 1953, Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gächter, S. & A Riedl 2002, “Moral Property Rights in Bargaining”, CESifo Working Paper No. 697 (10), CESifo, Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany, ftp://129.187.96.124/CESifo_WP/697.pdf

Gigerenzer, G., P. M. Todd & ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, New York- Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.

Goeree, J. K., & C. Holt 2001, „Ten Little treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions“, American Economic Review, 91(5), 1402-1422

Güth, W. & H. Kliemt 2002, "Experimentelle Ökonomik: Modell-Platonismus in neuem Gewande?", in: Experimentelle Ökonomik, Jahrbuch Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik herausgegeben von Martin Held, Gisela Kubon-Gilke und Richard Sturn, Band 2, Marburg: Metropolis 2003, S. 315-342.

Güth, W. 1984, “Egoismus und Altruismus - Eine spieltheoretische und experimentel-le Analyse“, in H. Todt (Hg.), Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, N.F., Bd.141 (1984), 35-58.

Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, H. Gintis & R. McElrath 2001,„In Search of homo oeconomicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies“, American Economic Review 91(2), S. 73-78.

Holländer, H. 1990, “A Social Exchange Approach to Voluntary Cooperation”, American Economic Review, 80(5), S. 1157-1167.

Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch & R. Thaler 1986, “Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market”, American Economic Review 76, S. 728-41.

Kliemt, H. 2001, „Rationality and Reality“, Kyklos, 2(3), S. 309-16. Mailath, G. J. 1998, “Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory”, Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), S. 1347-1374.

Major, B. und M. Testa 1989, „Social Comparison Processes and Judgements of Entitlement and Satisfaction“, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 101-20.

Marshall, A. 1885, „The Present Position of Economics“, in A. C. Pigou (ed.), The Memorials of Alfred Marshall, London: Macmillan 1925, 152-74.

Marx, K. 1867, Das Kapital, 1. Band, Berlin: Diez-Verlag 1970.

Menger, C. 1883, Zwei Richtungen der theoretischen Forschung, in: E.Schlicht, Grundlagen der ökonomischen Analyse, Reinbek: Rowohlt 1977, 119-145. (Auszug aus K. Menger, Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der politischen Ökonomie insbesondere,Leipzig 1883, 32-59).

Mill, J. S. 1848, Principles of Political Economy, hg. von W. Ashley, London: Longmans 1909.

Ortmann, A. & G. Gigerenzer 1997, “Reasoning in Economics and Psychology: Why Social Context Matters”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153(4), 700-710.

Romer, D. 1984, “The Theory of Social Custom: A Modification and Some Extensions”,Quarterly Journall of Economics 99, 717-27.

Roth, A.E. 1996, “Individual Rationality as a Useful Approximation: Comments on Tversky's 'Rational Theory and Constructive Choice'”, The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, herausgegeben von K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlman, and C. Schmidt, London: Macmillan, 198-202.

Schlicht, E. 1977, Grundlagen der ökonomischen Analyse, Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Schlicht, E. 1984, „Cognitive Dissonance in Economics“, in H. Todt (Hg.), Normengeleitetes Verhalten in den Sozialwissenschaften, Schriften des Vereins für Socialpoli-tik, N.F., Bd. 141 (1984), 61-81.

Schlicht, E. 1990, “A Critique of A Custom in Labor Economics”, in H. König (Hg.), Economics of Wage Determination, Berlin et al.: Springer-Verlag, 155-167.

Schlicht, E. 1993, “On Custom”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 149(1), 178-203.

Schlicht, E. 1995, “Economic Analysis and Organized Religion”, in: V. Reynolds & E. Jones (eds.), Survival and Religion: Biological Evolution and Cultural Change, Chichester: John Wiley, 111-60.

Schlicht, E. 1998, On Custom in the Economy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Schmoller, G. 1883, „Zur Methodologie der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften“, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, 7(3), 239-285.

Sperber, D., F. Cara & V. Girotto 1995, “Relevance Theory Explains the Selection Task”, Cognition, 57, 31-95.

Weber, M. 1972, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 5. Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. (1. Auflage 1921).

Zajac, E. 1995, Political Economy of Fairness, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Zajac, E. A., M. R. Isaac & D. Mathieu 1991, “Institutional Framing and Perceptions of Fairness”, Constitutional Political Economy, 2(3), 329-70.