Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–24 | Cite as

Rationality in context

On inequality and the epistemic problems of maximizing expected utility
  • Dominik Klein
  • Johannes Marx
  • Simon Scheller
Article

Abstract

The emergence of economic inequality has often been linked to individual differences in mental or physical capacities. By means of an agent-based simulation this paper shows that neither of these is a necessary condition. Rather, inequality can arise from iterated interactions of fully rational agents. This bears consequences for our understanding of both inequality and rationality. In a setting of iterated bargaining games, we claim that expected utility maximizing agents perform suboptimally in comparison with other strategies. The reason for this lies in complex feedback effects between an agents’ action and the quality of beliefs used to calculate expected utility. Consequentially, we argue that the standard notion of rationality as maximizing expected utility is insufficient, even for certain standard cases of economic interaction.

Keywords

Inequality Rationality Bargaining Agent-based modelling Rational choice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Paolo Galeazzi, Frederik Van De Putte, two anonymous reviewers and audiences in Poznan, Oslo, Gent and Paris for valuable feedback and suggestions. The work of DK and JM on this project was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) as part of the joint project Collective Attitude Formation [RO 4548/8-1]. The work of DK was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Grantov Agentura České Republiky (GAČR) as part of the joint project From Shared Evidence to Group Attitudes [RO 4548/6-1]. The work of SS was supported by the DFG through the Bamberg Graduate School of Social Sciences (BAGSS) and by the Humboldt-Foundation through the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP).

References

  1. Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (2014). Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2a–2b). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee, A. V., & Newman, A. F. (1991). Risk-bearing and the theory of income distribution. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. (2013). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  4. Blume, L. E., & Easley, D. (2008). Rationality. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, R. (2017). Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  6. Bush, R. R., & Mosteller, F. (1953). A stochastic model with applications to learning. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24(4), 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carvalho, L. S., Meier, S., & Wang, S. W. (2016). Poverty and economic decision-making: Evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. The American Economic Review, 106(2), 260–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabla-Norris, M. E., Kochhar, M. K., Suphaphiphat, M. N., Ricka, M. F., & Tsounta, E. (2015). Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective. IMF Staff Disscussion Note SDN/15/13.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, D., McKinsey, J. C. C., & Suppes, P. (1955). Outlines of a formal theory of value, I. Philosophy of Science, 22(2), 140–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elster, J. (1988). The nature and scope of rational-choice explanation. In E. Ullmann-Margalit (Ed.), Science in reflection: The Israel Colloquium: Studies in history, philosophy, and sociology of science (Vol. 3, pp. 51–65). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. The American Economic Review, 88(4), 848–881.Google Scholar
  13. Ferejohn, J. (1991). Rationality and interpretation: Parliamentary elections in early stuart england. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), The economic approach to politics: A critical reassessment of the theory of rational action (pp. 279–305). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  14. Galeazzi, P., & Franke, M. (2017). Smart representations: Rationality and evolution in a richer environment. Philosophy of Science, 84(3), 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  17. Gottschalk, P., & Smeeding, T. M. (2000). Empirical evidence on income inequality in industrialized countries. In A. Atkinson & F. Bourgignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution (Vol. 1, pp. 261–307). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grable, J. E. (2000). Financial risk tolerance and additional factors that affect risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(4), 625–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, D., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2012). Paradoxes of rational choice theory. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk (pp. 499–516). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halek, M., & Eisenhauer, J. G. (2001). Demography of risk aversion. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1999). Foundations of incomplete contracts. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(1), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haughton, J., & Khandker, S. R. (2009). Handbook on poverty and inequality. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kanbur, S. M. (1979). Of risk taking and the personal distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 87(4), 769–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolodny, O., & Stern, C. (2017). Evolution of risk preference is determined by reproduction dynamics, life history, and population size. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 9364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipman, B. L. (1986). Cooperation among egoists in prisoners’ dilemma and chicken games. Public Choice, 51(3), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLeod, J., Lawler, E., & Schwalbe, M. (2014). Handbook of the social psychology of inequality. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mishra, S., Hing, L. S. S., & Lalumière, M. L. (2015). Inequality and risk-taking. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 21(1), 128–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neckerman, K. M., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Truth and probability (1926). In R. Braithwaite (Ed.), The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays (pp. 156–198). New York, London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  34. Rehm, P. (2011). Risk inequality and the polarized american electorate. British Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Riker, W. H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology, 16(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riley, W. B., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(6), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salverda, W., Nolan, B., & Smeeding, T. M. (2009). The Oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, J. (1999). Rational choice theory. In Understanding Contemporary (Ed.), Society: Theories of the Present (pp. 126–138). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. Sen, A. (2008). Rational behaviour. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave dictionary of economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Sheehy-Skeffington, J. & Rea, J. (2017). How poverty affects people’s decision-making processes. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-poverty-affects-peoples-decision-making-processes. Accessed 31st January 2018.
  41. Skyrms, B. (2014). Evolution of the social contract (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spohn, W. (2002). The many facets of the theory of rationality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 2(6), 249–264.Google Scholar
  43. Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, A. (1995). North-South trade, employment, and inequality: Changing fortunes in a skill-driven world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yee, A. S. (1997). Thick rationality and the missing “brute fact”: The limits of rationalist incorporations of norms and ideas. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1001–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zollman, K. J. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BambergBambergGermany
  2. 2.University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  3. 3.Munich Center for Mathematical PhilosophyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations