EVOLUTION OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMIC THEORY
Keywords:
behavioural economics, economic psychology, cognitive psychology, mathematical psychology, mathematical game theory, stages of development of behavioural economics, neuroeconomics, neuromanagement.Abstract
The emergence of behavioural economics is associated with desire of the economic theory to find an explanation for the existing paradoxes, which cannot be clarified from the standpoint of the classical economy. To solve this problem, achievements of other sciences and psychology are used. Genesis of behavioural economics is presented in this article. The criterion for distinguishing the stages of its evolution is justified. The periodization has allowed defining influence of appearing theories on development of economic thought. The first stage (propaedeutic stage), directly connected with economic psychology, allowed authors to analyse the theory of expected utility and the theory of subjective expected utility from the psychological point of view. It revealed abnormal facts in the economic behaviour of individuals. The second stage (origin of behavioural economics) is closely connected to A Dynamic Theory of Personality by Kurt Lewin. Precisely at this stage the fundamental scientific schools were formed: a school of Carnegie Mellon University, which studies behaviour of companies in markets, and a Michigan School, which concentrated its attention on the behaviour of consumers. The third stage (formation of behavioural economics) integrated economic theory with cognitive psychology and mathematical psychology. It allowed explaining rational and irrational economic decision-making. The fourth stage (development of behavioural economics) is associated with the application of mathematical tools of game theory in economic theory, particularly in the sections that explain the strategic interaction of economic agents at different levels and in different conditions. The fifth stage (expansion of behavioural economics) is due to the influence of achievements in psychophysiology, neurophysiology, and neurobiology and makes it possible to create a new direction in the behavioural economics – neuroeconomics. The group of authors from South Ural State University is discovering new opportunities in the development of behavioural economics, using the advances in the study of human labour behaviour.References
Tarde G. Psychologie economique. Collection: Bibliotheque de philosophie contemporaine. Ancienne Librairie Germer Bailliere et Cie, 1902. 2. Garai L. To the psychology of economic rationality. In: Understanding economic behaviour. 12th Annual Colloquium of IAREP, the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology. Handelshoejskolen I Aarhus, 1987, pp. 29–41.
Katona G. Psychological Analysis of Economic Behaviour. NY, McGrow-Hill, 1951.
Fisher I. Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1892. 124 p.
Neumann J., Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, 1944. DOI: 10.2307/2572550
Allais M. Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque, Critique des Postulatset Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 1953, vol. 21. DOI: 10.2307/1907921
Ellsberg D. Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961, vol. 75 (4), pp. 643–669. DOI: 10.2307/1884324
Markowitz H. The Utility of Wealth. The Journal of Political Economy, 1952, vol. 60 (2), pp. 151– 158. DOI: 10.1086/257177
Lewin K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York – London, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1935.
Simon A. Administrative Behaviour. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. 3nd ed. London, UK, The Free Press, Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1976.
Cyert R., March J. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 1992. 268 p.
Leibenstein H. Allocative Efficiency vs. “XEfficiency”. The American Economic Review, 1966, vol. LVI.
Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. The Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk-taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, vol. 78(3), pt. 2, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1037/h0026468
Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124–1131. DOI: 10.1126/science. 185.4157.1124
Ainslie G. Impulse control in pigeons. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 1974, vol. 21 (3), pp. 485–489. 16. Chadlen M., Newsome W. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. Neurophysiology, 2001, vol. 86 (4), pp. 1916–1936. DOI: 10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1916
Zak P., Kurzban R., Matzner W. The Neurobiology of Trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2004, vol. 1032, pp. 224–227. DOI: 10.1196/annals.1314.025
Beshar A., Damasio A., Tranel D., Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 1997, vol. 275, iss. 5304, pp. 1293– 1295. DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 19. Smidts A. Kijken in Het Brein: Over De Mogelijkheden Van Neuromarketing, 2002.
Charles J. Management Rewired: Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science. Penguin Group, 2009.
