The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Behavioural Public Economics

  • B. Douglas Bernheim
  • Antonio Rangel
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2074

Abstract

Behavioural public economics incorporates ideas from behavioural economics, psychology, and neuroscience in the analysis and design of public policies. This article provides an introduction to its methods and discusses its application to savings and addiction policy.

Keywords

Addiction Behavioural public economics Budget constraints Compulsory saving Default options Imperfect decision processes Intertemporal choice Lump-sum taxes Myopia Neoclassical public economics Neuroscience Pigouvian taxes Psychology and economics Tax incentives for saving Well-being 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Becker, G., and K. Murphy. 1988. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96: 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernheim, B.D., and A. Rangel. 2004. Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economic Review 94: 1558–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernheim, B.D., and A. Rangel. 2005. From neuroscience to public policy: A new economic view of addiction. Swedish Economic Policy Review 12: 11–46.Google Scholar
  4. Bernheim, B.D., and A. Rangel. 2006a. Behavioral public economics: Welfare and policy analysis with fallible decision-makers. In Economic institutions and behavioral economics, ed. P. Diamond and H. Vartiainen. Princeton: Princeton University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Bernheim, B.D., and Rangel A. 2006b. Toward choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. American economic review papers and proceedings, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  6. Choi, J., D. Laibson, and B. Madrian. 2004. Plan design and 401(k) savings outcomes. National Tax Journal 57: 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond, P., and B. Koszegi. 2003. Quasi-hyperbolic discounting and retirement. Journal of Public Economics 87: 1839–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40: 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imrohoroglu, S., A. Imrohoroglu, and D. Joines. 2003. Time inconsistent preferences and social security. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 745–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krusell, P., B. Kuruscu, and A. Smith. 2000. Tax policy with quasi-geometric discounting. International Economic Journal 14(3): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krusell, P., B. Kuruscu, and A. Smith. 2002. Equilibrium welfare and government policy with quasi-geometric discounting. Journal of Economic Theory 105: 42–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laibson, D. 1997. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laibson D, Repetto A, and Tobacman J. 2004. Estimating discount functions from lifecycle consumption choices. Working paper. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  14. Loewenstein, G., D. Read, and R. Baumister, ed. 2003. Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Madrian, B., and D. Shea. 2001. The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 1999b. Doing it now or later. American Economic Review 89: 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 2001. Choice and procrastination. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 121–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 2006. Optimal sin taxes. Journal of Public Economics 90: 1825–1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phelps, E., and R. Pollack. 1968. On second-best national savings and game equilibrium growth. Review of Economic Studies 35: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strotz, R.H. 1956. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies 23: 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thaler, R.H., and S. Bernartzi. 2004. Save more for tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee savings. Journal of Political Economy 112: S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Douglas Bernheim
    • 1
  • Antonio Rangel
    • 1
  1. 1.