The Human Brain: The Ultimate Scarce, Efficient, and Rational Resource



There is a growing divide between neoclassical and behavioral economics. This divide can be partially reconciled by recognizing that the critically scarce resources in all economic inquiries are inside the human brain, mainly neurons and energy that need to be rationally allocated by the brain itself in order to maximize achievement of competing internal demands. The brain must resolve its internal optimization problems before it can optimize the allocation of external resources with alternative uses. Accordingly, the brain will never seek perfect rationality in decision-making, mainly because it could not have evolved to be perfectly rational, in neoclassical terms. Rather, it will refine (and only perfect) its decisions so long as the added value of doing so is worth the added cost. It will also devise decision rules (heuristics) that work as well as is economical, but which will lead to decision errors. Decision errors can be a source of decision efficiency and welfare enhancement above what would be achieved under perfect rationality (if perfect rationality were possible, which it can’t be).


  1. Ariely, Dan. 2008. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  2. Bear, Adam, 2016. What neuroscience says about free will. Scientific American, June 16.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Gary S. 1962. Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy 70 (1, February): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, Gary S., and Kevin M. Murphy. 1988. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96 (August): 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, Clayton. 1997. Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  6. Freedman, David H. 2010. Why Experts Keep Failing Us and How to Know When Not to Trust Them. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  7. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  8. Larcom, Shaun, Ferdinand Rauch, and Tim Willems. 2017. The benefits of forced experimentation: Striking evidence from the London underground network. Quarterly Journal of Economics 132 (4, November): 2019–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, Dwight. 1969. Utility analysis and repetitive gambling. American Economist 13 (2): 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McKenzie, Richard B. 2010. Predictably Rational? In Search of Defenses for Rational Behavior in Economics. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mullainathan, Sendhill. 2017. Why trying new things is so hard to do. New York Times, December 1.Google Scholar
  12. Nease, Robert. 2016. The Power of Fifty Bits: The New Science of Turning Good Intentions into Positive Results. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  13. Polanyi, Michael. 2009. The Tacit Dimension (revised edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Robinson, E., et al. 2014. Will smaller plates lead to smaller waists? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect that experimental manipulation of dishware size has on energy consumption. Obesity Review, July.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Segal, David. 2016. Solar snare: Spend thousands and cut power bills by $9 a month. New York Times, August 13.Google Scholar
  16. Swartz, Barry. 2005. The Paradox of Choice. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  17. Thaler, Richard H. 1990. Anomalies: Saving, fungibility, and mental accounts. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (1): 193–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thaler, Richard H. 1991. Quasi Rational Economics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Wansink, Brian. 2007. Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  20. Wansink, Brian, and Koert van Ittersum. 2006. The visual illusions of food: Why plates, bowls, and spoons can vias consumption volume. FASEB Journal 20: A618.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paul Merage School of BusinessUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations