Advertisement

Verhaltensökonomik als Gegenprogramm zur Standardökonomik?

  • Dennis A. V. DittrichEmail author
Aufsätze

Zusammenfassung

Die Moderne Verhaltensökonomik ist die natürliche Weiterentwicklung der neoklassischen Standardökonomik der 1980er Jahre. Sie nutzt Erkenntnisse aus benachbarten Sozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften, um bessere Prognosen zu den Verhaltensänderungen zu erzielen und identifiziert vermeintlich irrelevante Faktoren, deren Berücksichtigung zu besseren Politikmaßnahmen führt. Sie wird in der gesamten Breite der ökonomischen Forschung, in der Wissenschaft und Praxis angewandt. Ihr Erfolg spricht für eine Konvergenz von Verhaltensökonomik und derzeitige Standardökonomik.

Schlüsselwörter

Verhaltensökonomik Beschränkte Rationalität Empirische Wende Neoklassische Reparatur Experiment Pragmatisches Modellieren 

Behavioral Economics as an alternative to mainstream economics?

Abstract

Modern behavioral economics is a natural progression of the neoclassical standard economics of the 1980. It applies insights from neighboring social and behavioral sciences to improve predictions on behavioral change and to identify supposedly irrelevant factors that, if considered, will lead to better policy measures. Modern behavioral economics approaches are applied in all fields of economics, both in science and policy. Its success indicates a convergence of behavioral economics and current standard economics.

Keywords

Behavioral Economics Bounded Rationality Empirical Turn Neoclassical Repair Experiment Pragmatic Modelling 

Literatur

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (2002). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 411–433.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3083349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2011). Identity economics: how our identities shape our work, wages, and well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alm, J., & Sheffrin, S. M. (2016). Using behavioral economics in public economics. Public Finance Review, 45(1), 4–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142116661411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ames, P., & Hiscox, M. (2016). Guide to developing behavioural interventions for randomised controlled trials: nine guiding questions. Barton, ACT: Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Angner, E. (2015). To navigate safely in the vast sea of empirical facts. Synthese, 192(11), 3557–3575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0552-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angner, E. (2016). A course in behavioral economics 2e. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Behavioral economics. In Handbook of the philosophy of science: philosophy of economics (S. 641–690). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Angrist, J., Azoulay, P., Ellison, G., Hill, R., & Lu, S. F. (2017). Economic research evolves: fields and styles. The American Economic Review, 107(5), 293–297.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). „Coherent arbitrariness“: stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.  https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnsperger, C., & Varoufakis, Y. (2006). What Is Neoclassical Economics? The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrelevance and, thus, discursive power. Panoeconomicus, 53(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam smith, behavioral economist. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 131–145.  https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005774357897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Backhouse, R. E., & Cherrier, B. (2017). The age of the applied economist: the transformation of economics since the 1970s. History of Political Economy, 49(Supplement), 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4166239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Backhouse, R. E., & Medema, S. G. (2009). Retrospectives: on the definition of economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(1), 221–233.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.1.221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bartolini, S., Bilancini, E., Bruni, L., & Porta, P. L. (2016). Policies for happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Bavel, R., Herrmann, B., Esposito, G., & Proestakis, A. (2013). Applying behavioural sciences to EU policy-making. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  https://doi.org/10.2788/4659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berg, N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise? History of Economic Ideas, 18(1), 1000–1033.Google Scholar
  18. Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Behavioral welfare economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), 267–319.  https://doi.org/10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bernheim, B. D. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: a unified approach to behavioral welfare economics. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 7(1), 12–68.  https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2016.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2007). Behavioral public economics: Welfare and policy analysis with nonstandard decision-makers. In P. Diamond & H. Vartiainen (Hrsg.), Behavioral economics and its applications (S. 7–84). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2008). How are preferences revealed? Journal of Public Economics, 92(8-9), 1787–1794.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bhargava, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy 102: beyond nudging. The American Economic Review, 105(5), 396–401.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bruns, H., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Klement, K., Luistro Jonsson, M., & Rahali, B. (2018). Can nudges be transparent and yet effective? Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Camerer, C. (1999). Behavioral economics: reunifying psychology and economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(19), 10575–10577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T. H. (2015). Behavioral game theory experiments and modeling. In H. P. Young & S. Zamir (Hrsg.), Handbook of game theory with economic applications (Bd. 4, S. 517–573). Amsterdam: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53766-9.00010-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: past, present, future. In C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein & M. Rabin (Hrsg.), Advances in behavioral economics (S. 3–51). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for „asymmetric paternalism“. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211–1254.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3312889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chabé-Ferret, S. (2018). The empirical revolution in economics: taking stock and looking ahead. https://tseconomist.com/2018/03/24/the-empirical-revolution-in-economics-taking-stock-and-looking-ahead/. Zugegriffen: 26. März 2016.Google Scholar
  30. Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: a pragmatic perspective. The American Economic Review, 105(5), 1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Colander, D., Holt, R., & Rosser, B. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485–499.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0953825042000256702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2014). Behavioral design: a new approach to development policy. Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 7–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Davis, J. B. (2006). The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism? Journal of Institutional Economics, 2(1), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Davis, J. B. (2013). Economics imperialism under the impact of psychology: the case of behavioral development economics. OEconomia, 2013(01), 119–138.  https://doi.org/10.4074/s2113520713011055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. De Grauwe, P., & Ji, Y. (2018). Behavioural economics is useful also in macroeconomics: the role of animal spirits. Comparative Economic Studies, 60, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dhami, S. (2016). The foundations of behavioral economic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dohmen, T. (2014). Behavioral labor economics: advances and future directions. Labour Economics, 30, 71–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dold, M. F. (2018). Back to buchanan? explorations of welfare and subjectivism in behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(2), 160–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1421770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ellison, G. (2006). Bounded rationality in industrial organization. In R. Blundell, W. Newey & T. Persson (Hrsg.), Advances in economics and Econometrics: theory and applications, ninth world congress of the econometric society (Bd. 2, S. 142–174). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2012). The use of happiness research for public policy. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4), 659–674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-011-0629-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Hrsg.), Essays in positive economics (S. 3–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choices involving risk. The Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.  https://doi.org/10.1086/256692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fudenberg, D. (2006). Advancing beyond advances in behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 44(3), 694–711.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.44.3.694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gabaix, X. (2017). Behavioral Inattention. Tech. Rep. 24096. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.  https://doi.org/10.3386/w24096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2008). The seven properties of good models. In A. Caplin & A. Schotter (Hrsg.), The foundations of positive and normative economics (S. 292–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328318.003.0012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Geiger, N. (2017). The rise of behavioral economics: a quantitative assessment. Social Science History, 41(3), 555–583.  https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2017.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond „heuristics and biases“. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 83–115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gigerenzer, G. (1993). From metaphysics to psychophysics and statistics. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(1), 139–140.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103(3), 592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Hrsg.). (2001). Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox (1. Aufl.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group (2000). Simple heuristics that make us smart (1. Aufl.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Gode, D. K., & Sunder, S. (1993). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. The Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 119–137.  https://doi.org/10.1086/261868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
  56. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1982). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: reply. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 575.Google Scholar
  57. Grubb, M. D. (2015). Behavioral consumers in industrial organization: an overview. Review of Industrial Organization, 47(3), 247–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-015-9477-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Guala, F. (2016). Experimental economics, history of. In The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (S. 1–7). London: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2184-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Güth, W. (1995). On ultimatum bargaining experiments—a personal review. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(3), 329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)00071-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Güth, W. (2008). (non)behavioral economics: a programmatic assessment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 216(4), 244–253.  https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.4.244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Güth, W. (2009). Optimal gelaufen, einfach zufrieden oder unüberlegt gehandelt? Zur Theorie (un)eingeschränkt rationalen Entscheidens. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 10, 75–100.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2516.2009.00307.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Güth, W. (2010). Satisficing and (un)bounded rationality—a formal definition and its experimental validity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(3), 308–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Güth, W. (2013). Satisficing players. Research in World Economy, 4(1), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v4n1p1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Güth, W., & Kliemt, H. (2003). Experimentelle Ökonomik: Modell-Platonismus in neuem Gewande? In M. Held, G. Kubon-Gilke & R. Sturn (Hrsg.), Experimente in der Ökonomik, Jahrbuch Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik (Bd. 2, S. 315–342). Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  65. Halpern, D. (2016). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. London: WH Allen.Google Scholar
  66. Halpern, D., & Sanders, M. (2016). Nudging by government: progress, impact, & lessons learned. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2(2), 52–65.  https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2016.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hamermesh, D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 162–172.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hansen, F., Anell, A., Gerdtham, U. G., & Lyttkens, C. H. (2015). The future of health economics: the potential of behavioral and experimental economics. Nordic Journal of Health Economics, 3(1), 68–86.  https://doi.org/10.5617/njhe.660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Haucap, J. (2014). Implikationen der Verhaltensökonomik für die Wettbewerbspolitik. In C. Müller & N. Otter (Hrsg.), Behavioral Economics und Wirtschaftspolitik (S. 175–194). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  70. Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: to nudge or not to nudge. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2004). Foundations of human Sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., & Lesorogol, C. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Heukelom, F. (2014). Behavioral economics: a history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hirshleifer, D. (2015). Behavioral finance. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7(1), 133–159.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-092214-043752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Infante, G., Lecouteux, G., & Sugden, R. (2016). Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(1), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2015.1070527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Klein, P. A. (1988). Of paradigms and politics. Journal of Economic Issues, 22(2), 435–441.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1988.11504773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Klick, J., & Mitchell, G. (2006). Government regulation of irrationality: moral and cognitive hazards. Minnesota Law Review, 90, 1620–1663.Google Scholar
  80. Koch, A., Nafziger, J., & Nielsen, H. S. (2015). Behavioral economics of education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Mistakes in choice-based welfare analysis. The American Economic Review, 97(2), 477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2008). Choices, situations, and happiness. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8), 1821–1832.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.  https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: an extended replication in Las vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lindman, H. R. (1971). Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Loewenstein, G., Bryce, C., Hagmann, D., & Rajpal, S. (2015). Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(1), 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2015.0000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2003). Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets? Economic Journal, 113(486), C153–C166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lunn, P. (2014). Regulatory policy and Behavioural economics. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264207851-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. McQuillin, B., & Sugden, R. (2012). Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4), 553–567.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-011-0627-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2015). Behavioral economics. In J. D. Wright (Hrsg.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2. Aufl. S. 437–442). Oxford: Elsevier.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.71007-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Nakamura, R., Suhrcke, M., & Zizzo, D. J. (2017). A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy. Theory and Decision, 83(4), 513–533.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-017-9625-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Odermatt, R., & Stutzer, A. (2018). Subjective well-being and public policy. In E. Diener, S. Oishi & L. Tay (Hrsg.), Handbook of well-being. Lake City: DEF Publishers.Google Scholar
  96. OECD (2017). Behavioural insights and public policy: lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rabin, M. (2002). A perspective on psychology and economics. European Economic Review, 46(4), 657–685.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00207-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking liberties: a critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  99. Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 310–326.Google Scholar
  100. Saint-Paul, G. (2011). The tyranny of utility: behavioral social science and the rise of paternalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Samson, A. (Hrsg.). (2015). The behavioral economics guide 2015. London: Behavioral Science Solutions Ltd.Google Scholar
  102. Samson, A. (Hrsg.). (2016). The Behavioral Economics Guide 2016. London: Behavioral Science Solutions Ltd.Google Scholar
  103. Samson, A. (Hrsg.). (2017). The Behavioral Economics Guide 2017. London: Behavioral Science Solutions Ltd.Google Scholar
  104. Samuelson, P. A. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica, 5(17), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Samuelson, P. A. (1948). Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference. Economica, 15(60), 243–253.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2549561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (1985). Economics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  107. Sauermann, H., & Selten, R. (1962). Anspruchsanpassungstheorie der Unternehmung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft / Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 118(4), 577–597.Google Scholar
  108. Savage, L. J. (1951). The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 55–67.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2280094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  110. Schmalensee, R. (1978). A model of advertising and product quality. The Journal of Political Economy, 86(3), 485–503.  https://doi.org/10.1086/260683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schnellenbach, J. (2014). Neuer Paternalismus und individuelle Rationalität: Eine ordnungsökonomische Perspektive. List Forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik, 40(3), 239–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03373071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Schnellenbach, J. (2016). A constitutional economics perspective on soft paternalism. Kyklos, 69(1), 135–156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Selten, R. (1990). Bounded rationality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics / Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 146(4), 649–658.Google Scholar
  114. Selten, R. (2000). Eingeschränkte Rationalität und ökonomische Motivation. Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, 274, 129–157.Google Scholar
  115. Sent, E. M. (2004). Behavioral economics: how psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36(4), 735–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sent, E. M. (2008). Rationality, history of the concept. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Hrsg.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2. Aufl. S. 895–902). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  117. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  118. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: social and rational, mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  120. Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.Google Scholar
  121. Simon, H. A. (1963). Economics and psychology. In S. Koch (Hrsg.), Psychology: a study of a science (Bd. 6, S. 685–723). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  122. Simon, H. A. (1986). The Failure of Armchair Economics. Challenge, 29(5), 18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/05775132.1986.11471113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 1(3), 280–287.Google Scholar
  124. Smith, A. (1759) The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Printed for A. Millar, in the Strand; and A. Kincaid and J. Bell, in Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  125. Spiegler, R. (2011). Bounded rationality and industrial organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Steffel, M., Williams, E. F., & Pogacar, R. (2016). Ethically deployed defaults: transparency and consumer protection through disclosure and preference articulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 865–880.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sugden, R. (2004). The opportunity criterion: consumer sovereignty without the assumption of coherent preferences. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 1014–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Sugden, R. (2008). Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(3), 226–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-008-9043-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Sugden, R. (2010). Opportunity as mutual advantage. Economics & Philosophy, 26(1), 47–68.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267110000052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Sugden, R. (2013). The Behavioural economist and the social planner: to whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed? Inquiry, 56(5), 519–538.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2013.806139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sugden, R. (2017a). Characterising competitive equilibrium in terms of opportunity. Social Choice and Welfare, 48(3), 487–503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-016-1015-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sugden, R. (2017b). Do people really want to be nudged towards healthy lifestyles? International Review of Law and Economics, 64(2), 113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-016-0264-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Nudges that fail. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 4–25.  https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Misconceptions about nudges. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2(1), 61–67.Google Scholar
  135. Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sunstein, C. R., Reisch, L. A., & Rauber, J. (2018). A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Svorenčík, A. (2015). The experimental turn in economics: a history of experimental economics. Doctoral Dissertation series, University of Utrecht. Utrecht: Utrecht school of economics.Google Scholar
  138. Svorenčík, A. (2016). The Sidney Siegel tradition: the divergence of behavioral and experimental economics at the end of the 1980s. History of Political Economy, 48(suppl 1), 270–294.  https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-3619310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Thaler, R. H. (1992). The winner’s curse: paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Thaler, R. H. (1994). Quasi rational economics. New York, NY: SAGE.Google Scholar
  142. Thaler, R. H. (2016a). Behavioral economics: past, present, and future. The American Economic Review, 106(7), 1577–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Thaler, R. H. (2016b). Misbehaving: the making of behavioral economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  144. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.  https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world (evolution and cognition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Weimann, J. (2016). Entscheidungstheoretische Instrumente für die Politikberatung? Wirtschaftsdienst, 96(8), 620–624.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-016-2025-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. White, M. (2013). The manipulation of choice: ethics and libertarian paternalism. New York, NY: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Whitehead, M., Jones, R., Howell, R., Lilley, R., & Pykett, J. (2014). Nudging all over the world. Swindon, Edinburgh: Tech. rep., Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  151. Whitman, D. G., & Rizzo, M. J. (2015). The problematic welfare standards of behavioral paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 409–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0244-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Wilkinson, N., & Klaes, M. (2017). An introduction to behavioral economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  153. Wisman, J. D. (1980). Values and modes of rationality in economic science. International Journal of Social Economics, 7(3), 137–148.  https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. World Bank (2015). World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© List-Gesellschaft e.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Touro College BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations