Modeling Behavior: A Critical Agenda

  • Laurence KranichEmail author
Part of the Studies in Economic Design book series (DESI)


The traditional approach to modeling behavioral anomalies consists of modifying the specification of agents’ characteristics in order to exhibit or generate each such anomaly. Within this context, I raise two issues: (1) why agents’ characteristics differ and how they are determined, and (2) the design of policies and institutions when traits are at least partially influenced by the environment. However, the main argument in the paper is that the traditional, piecemeal approach may be problematic due to interactive effects between traits or behaviors. This suggests that greater effort should be devoted to determining which traits are interrelated and to studying them jointly rather than separately. Finally, I briefly mention two alternative modeling strategies which may be more amenable to analyzing behavior in new situations.


  1. Anderlini, L., & Terlizzese, D. (2017). Equilibrium trust. Games and Economic Behavior, 102, 624–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battigalli, P., & Dufwenberg, M. (2007). Guilt in games. American Economic Review, 97, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisin, A., & Verdier, T. (2001). The economics of cultural transmission and the dynamics of preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 97, 298–319.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, G. (1973). Pareto desirable redistribution: The case of malice and envy. Journal of Public Economics, 2, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cervellati, M., Esteban, J., & Kranich, L. (2010). Work values, endogenous sentiments and redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 612–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and co-operation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.Google Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  10. Kreps, D. (1979). A representation theorem for ‘Preference for flexibility’. Econometrica, 47, 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sen, A. (1991). Welfare, preference and freedom. Journal of Econometrics, 50, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations