Advertisement

Minds and Machines

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 339–360 | Cite as

Is Economic Rationality in the Head?

  • Kevin Vallier
Article
  • 344 Downloads

Abstract

Many economic theorists hold that social institutions can lead otherwise irrational agents to approximate the predictions of traditional rational choice theory. But there is little consensus on how institutions do so. I defend an economic internalist account of the institution-actor relationship by explaining economic rationality as a feature of individuals whose decision-making is aided by institutional structures. This approach, known as the subjective transaction costs theory, represents apparently irrational behavior as a rational response to high subjective transaction costs of thinking and deciding. The theory has two attractive features. First, it reconciles rational choice theory with the increasing body of evidence cataloguing putative errors in economic decision-making. Second, it vindicates the explanatory power of individual choice against externalist challenges; the subjective transaction costs theory keeps economic rationality in the head.

Keywords

Economic rationality Economic agency Market rationality Subjective transaction costs Behavioral economics Heuristics and biases Extended mind 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper has been long in the making, so I owe many people my thanks, including but not limited to Jerry Gaus, Terry Horgan, Keith Hankins, John Thrasher, Tyler Cowen, Adam Martin, Mike Munger, Alex Von Stein, Don Ross, Mark Alfano, Peter Boettke, Fred D'Agostino, Art Carden, David Schmidtz, Cathleen Johnson, Vernon Smith, Bart Wilson, and several anonymous referees.

References

  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2009). Why the mind is still in the head. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 78–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alchian, A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  4. Binmore, K. (2007). Does game theory work? The bargaining challenge. Cambridge: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bower, B. (1996). Rational mind designs. Research into the ecology of thought treads on contested terrain. Science News, 150, 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camerer, C, & Hogarth, R. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 7–42.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Chew, S. H., & MacCrimmon, K. R. (1979). Alpha-Nu choice theory: A generalization of expected utility theory. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  8. Chiesi, F., Handley, S., Morsanyi, K., & Primi, C. (2009). The effects and side-effects of statistics education: Psychology students' (mis-)conceptions of probability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (1996). Economic reason: The interplay of individual learning and external structure. In J. Drobak & J. Nye (Eds.), The frontiers of the new institutional economics (pp. 269–290). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2012). Coupling, constitution, and the cognitive kind. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 81–99). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cowen, T. (2004). How do economists think about rationality? In M. Byron (Ed.), Satisficing and maximizing: Moral theorists on practical reason (pp. 213–236). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denzau, A., & North, D. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences, 47(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, J. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in the Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. Chicago: Chiago University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gaus, G. (2007). On philosophy, politics, and economics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don't pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gode, D., & Sunder, S. (1993). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy, 101(1), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gode, D., & Sunder, S. (1997). What makes markets allocationally efficient? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 603–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould, S. J. (1992). Bully for brontosaurus: Reflections in natural history. Boston: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Hausman, D. (1995). Rational choice and social theory: A comment. Journal of Philosophy, 92(2), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, Daniel. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Luce, D., & Raiffa, H. (1989). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Marschak, J. (1968). Economics of inquiring, communicating, deciding. American Economic Review, 58, 1–18.Google Scholar
  32. Menary, R. (2012). Introduction: The extended mind in focus. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. North, D. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ortmann, A., & Rydval, O. (2004). How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: An illustration. Economics Letters, 85(3), 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation (2nd ed., p. 1944). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Prinz, J. (2009). Is consciousness embodied? In R. Phillip & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 419–437). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Quine, W. V. (1970). On the reasons for indeterminacy of translation. The Journal of Philosophy, 67(6), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnik, M. (2000). An introduction to decision theory (5th ed., p. 1987). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ross, D. (2005). Economic agency and cognitive science: Microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ross, D., & Ladyman, J. (2012). The alleged coupling-constitution fallacy and the mature sciences. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 155–166). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101(8), 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  43. Samuels, R., & Stich, S. (2004). Rationality and psychology. In A. Mele & P. Rawling (Eds.), The oxford handbook of rationality (pp. 279–301). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Satz, D., & Ferejohn, J. (1994). Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy, 91(2), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, H. (1984). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. I). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sloman, S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, V. (1982a). Markets as economizers of information. Economic Inquiry, 20, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, V. (1982b). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72, 923–955.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, V. (1985). Experimental economics: Reply. American Economic Review, 75(1), 265–272.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, V. (2008). Rationality in economics: Constructivist and ecological forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, V., & Walker, J. (2007). Monetary rewards and decision cost in experimental economics. Economic Inquiry, 31(2), 245–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thaler, R. (1994). Quasi-rational economics. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Tubaro, P. (2009). Is individual rationality essential to market price formation? The contribution of zero-intelligence agent trading models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 16(1), 1–19.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson, R. & Foglia, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/embodied-cognition/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations