Advertisement

Economic Behavior and the Issue of Rationality

  • Alexandr A. ShestakovEmail author
  • Eduard G. Noskov
  • Vladimir A. Tikhonov
  • Nonna S. Astafeva
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Abstract

The use of theoretical constructs is a peculiar feature of science. Modern socio-humanitarian knowledge is peculiar for search for anthropological and gnoseological foundations of corresponding theories. In particular, fundamental precondition of the latter of the model Homo Sociologicus, and in economic theory—Homo Economicus. The latter theoretical construct shows that individual is never only an abstract agent of economic activities—he is a specific embodiment of social body in the form of comprehensive economic culture. The basic characteristics of the Homo Economicus model is rationally organized behavior. Achievement of the purpose of the research supposes description of economic behavior in the aspect of (1) optimality, (2) purposefulness, (3) awareness. As any theoretical tool, the Homo Economicus model has certain limitations in usage. This model possesses heuristic potential only when reverse actions of other individuals are not taken into account; secondly, the very idea of rationality of economic behavior supposes implementation of a range of corresponding hypothesis (for example, hypothesis on equal behavior of economic actors), and, thirdly, basic idea of maximization of usefulness is only one of possible explaining models. It is concluded that existing limitations in application of the hypothesis, which related to rational character of economic action, do not cancel its heuristic meaning, only outlining the limits of applicability.

Keywords

Economic behavior Economic rationality Theoretical model 

References

  1. Allais M (1998) Conditions of effectiveness in economy, 299 pGoogle Scholar
  2. Avtonomov VS (1998) Model of human в economic science, 229 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Dahrendorf R (2002) Homo Sociologicus. Experience on history, value, and critic of the category of social role. Pfade aus Utopia: Arbeiten zur Theorie und Methode der Soziologie, pp 56–118Google Scholar
  4. Filatov VP (2012) Models of human in social sciences. Epistomol Philos Sci 31(1):125–140Google Scholar
  5. Himan DN (1992) Modern micro-economics: analysis and application: 2 volumes, vol 1, 384 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Lawal C (2010) Homo economicus. Esseay on origins of neo-liberalism, 432 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Morrison M, Morgan MS (1999) Models as mediators—perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Schumpeter JА (1982) The theory of economic development : an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, 455 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Shestakov АА (2011) Economic principle as a research program: interdependence of subjective and reflexive levels. Bull Samara State Univ Ser: Econ Manag 10(91):22–27Google Scholar
  10. Shestakov АА (2012) Theoretical constructs in economic theory: sense and means of formation. Bull Samara State Univ Ser Econ Manage 1(92):212–217Google Scholar
  11. Sugden R (2000) Credible worlds: the status of theoretical models in economics. J Econ Methodol 7(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weber M (1990) Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism. Selected works, pp 61–272Google Scholar
  13. Weise P (1993) Homo economicus and homo sociologicus: monsters of social sciences. THESIS: Theory Hist Econ Soc Inst Syst 3:115–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandr A. Shestakov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eduard G. Noskov
    • 1
  • Vladimir A. Tikhonov
    • 1
  • Nonna S. Astafeva
    • 1
  1. 1.Samara State Architecture and Construction UniversitySamaraRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations