Public Choice

, Volume 174, Issue 1–2, pp 23–40 | Cite as

Can behavioral economists improve economic rationality?

  • Dwight R. Lee
  • J. R. Clark


Behavioral economists recognize that we are all subject to the cognitive biases they have observed and studied in laboratory experiments. Yet the leading behavioral economists exhibit far more interest in applying those biases to market decisions than to political decision-, and see irrational decisions making as another example of market failure which justifies correction by some form of government action. We treat this as a justification for comparing the distortions of cognitive biases on market decisions with the distortions of those biases on political decisions. We also make a distinction between the rationality of individual decisions and the collective rationality of those decisions, and question Thaler’s argument that people fail to learn much from the mistakes they make in markets. We conclude that behavioral economists would do more to increase economic rationality by making the case for eliminating government policies that are clearly economically irrational and destructive. Eliminating such policies would not necessarily increase the individual rationality of political or market decisions, but it would increase the collective rationality of both.


Behavioral economics Confirmation bias Endowment effects Loss aversion Shortsightedness Identifiably-victim effect Underweighting opportunity costs 


  1. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  2. Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam Smith: Behavioral economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastiat, F. (2012). The law, and the state, and other political writings, 1843–1850. In Jacques de Guenin (Ed.), The collected works of Frederic Bastiat. Liberty Fund: Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  4. Bastiat, F. (2016). Economic sophisms and “what is seen and what is not seen”. In Jacques de Guenin (Ed.), The collected works of Frederic Bastiat. Liberty Fund: Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  5. Browning, E. K. (2008). Stealing from each other: How the welfare state robs Americans of money and spirit. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1979). What should economists do?. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. F. & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. In C.F. Camerer, G. Lowenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics (pp. 3–51). New York: Russel Sage Foundation; Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F., & Lovello, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excessive entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89(1), 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, J. R., & Lee, D. R. (2017). Too inexpensive to be inexpensive: How government censorship increase costs by disguising them. In Joshua Hall (Ed.), Explorations in public sector economics: Essays by prominent economists (pp. 35–50). Gewerbestrasse: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cogan, J. F. (2017). The high cost of good intentions: A history of US Federal entitlement programs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fike, R., & Gwartney, J. (2015). Public choice, market failure, and government failure in principles textbooks. Journal of Economic Education, 46(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillers, H. (2017). States face crunch in retirement benefits. The Wall Street Journal, September 21, pp. A1–A10.Google Scholar
  14. Heukelom, F. (2014). Behavioral economics: A history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the “identifiable victim effect”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farra, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R. H. (2004). Experimental test of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. In C.F. Camerer, G. Lowenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics (pp. 55–74) New York: Russel Sage Foundation; Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, D. R. (2011). Happiness, adaptation and decreasing marginal utility of income. The Journal of Private Enterprise, 17(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
  19. McKenzie, R. B. (2010). Predictably rational: In search of defenses for rational behavior in economics. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, P. (1977). Comments on advertising and free speech. In A. Hyman & M. B. Johnson (Eds.), Advertising and free speech (pp. 1–32). Lexington: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  21. Ricks, T. R. (2017). Churchill and Orwell: The fight for freedom. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schnellenbach, J., & Schubert, C. (2015). Behavioral political economy: A survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 40, 395–417. (part B).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singer, P. (2016). The most good you can do. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, V. (2008). Rationality in economics: Constructivist and ecological forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Thaler, R. H. (1992). The winners curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  28. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tullock, G. (1975). The transitional gains trap. The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(Autumn), 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.O’Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom, Cox School of BusinessSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.The University of Tennessee at ChattanoogaChattanoogaUSA

Personalised recommendations