Yıl 2019, Cilt 5, Sayı 1, Sayfalar 63 - 68 2019-01-01

Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior

Gelengül Koçaslan [1]

0 16

Homoeconomicus is the top player of economics. Economic theoretical insights, models, approaches and frameworks are built upon homoeconomicus also known as economic human. In order to act consistent with the theory and not to violate its basic tenets, homoeconomicus is equipped with some spesific characteristic properties. Homoeconomicus is designed as an unemotional, selfish, rational utility maximizer. In other words homoeconomicus was born as a perfect representative of the theory. So it is a dual structure both supports each other. This research aims to better understand homoeconomicus and why and how homoeconomicus fails in real economic life.

Homoeconomicus, rationality, irrationality
  • Achtziger, A. , Alós-Ferrer, C. , &Wagner, A. K. (2016). The impact of self-control depletion on social preferences in the ultimatum game.Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 1–16
  • Agarwall, B. ,& Vercelli, A.(2005). Introduction. In B. Agarwall, &A. Vercelli (Eds.), Psychology, rationality and economic behavior:changing standard assumptions (pp. 1-15).New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devantle risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21 (4), 503-546.Bastien, C. , &Cardoso, J. L. (2007).From homo economicus to homo corporativus:A neglected critique of neoclassical economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 118–127 .
  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., &McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history.Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122-42.
  • Bolton, G. E. ,& Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargain-ing.Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95-121.
  • Camerer, C. F, Loewenstein, G. , & Rabin R. (2003). (Eds.),Advances in behavioral economics. USA , Princeton University Press. Charness, G.,&Shmidov, V. (2014).Trust and Reciprocity. Foundations and Trendsin Microeconomics,10(3), 167–207 .
  • Chaudhuri, A. ,& Gangadharan, L. (2005). An experimental analysis of trust and trust-worthiness. Southern Economic Journal, 73(4), 959-985.
  • Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity.Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260-281.
  • Debove, S. , Baumard, N. , & André,J. B. (2016). Models of the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game: a review and classification.Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 245–254.
  • Falk, A., Fehr, E. ,& Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 41(1), 20-26.
  • Fehr, E., Gächter, S.,& Kirchsteiger, G. (1997). Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device.Econometrica, 65, 866-90.
  • Fehr, E.,& Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.
  • Fehr, E. ,&Ga¨chter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciproci-ty.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–81.Fehr, E. ,& Schmidt, K. M. (2003). Theories of fairness and reciprocity - evidence and economic applications. In M. Dewatripont, L. P. Hansen & S. J. Turnovsky (Eds.),Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Econometric Society Monographs, Volume 1,(pp. 208 – 257). Eighth World Congress.
  • Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bar-gaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369.
  • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., &Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultima-tum bargaining.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3: 367-388.
  • Henrich J. , Boyd, R. , Bowles, S. , Camerer, C. , Fehr, E. , Gintis, H. , & Mcelreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale socie-ties. Economics And Social Behavıor, 91(2), 73-78.
  • Jager, W., Janssen, M.A., De Vries, H.J.M., De Greef, J., &Vlek, C.A.J. (2000) Be-haviour in commons dilemmas: homoeconomicus and homopsychologicus in an ecologi-cal-economic model.Special Issue The Human Actor In Ecological-Economic Models Ecological Economics, 35, 357–379.
  • Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining Experiments. In Kagel, J. H. , & Roth, A. (Eds.), Hand-book of Experimental Economics (pp. 253-342). USA, Princeton Univeristy Press.
  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Kahneman, D. , & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory:an analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
  • Kent, M. L., &Taylor, M. (2016). Review from homoeconomicus to homodialogicus: rethinking socialmedia use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review,42, 60–67.
  • Keynes, J.M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London, Macmillan.
  • Kluver, J. , Frazier, R. , &Haidt, J. (2014). Behavioral ethics for homoeconomicus, homoheuristicus,and homoduplex. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses. 123, 150–158.
  • Koçaslan, G. (2010). Neuroeconomics: Bringing Neuroscience and Economics Togeth-er.Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(3), 505-512.
  • Kritikos, A. , & Bolle, F. (2005).Utility-based altruism:evidence from experiments. In B. Agarwall & A. Vercelli (Eds.), Psychology, rationality and economic behavior:changing standard assumptions(pp. 181-194). New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Machina, M. (1981). "Rational" decision making versus "rational" decision modelling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24, 163-175.
  • Machina, M. (1982). "'Expected utility" analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50, 277-323.
  • McFadden, D. (1999).Rationality for economists.Journal Of Risk And Uncertainty, 19(1), 73-105.
  • Mongin, P. (1998). Expected utility theory. In J. B. Davis, D. W. Hands,& U. Mäki (Eds.),The handbook of economic methodology (pp.171-178). UK, Edward Elgar Pub-lishing.
  • Mussel, P. , Hewig, J. , & Göritz, A. S. (2013). Which choice is the rational one? An investigation of need for cognition in the ultimatum game. Journal of Research in Per-sonality, 47, 588–591
  • Nyborg, K. (2000). Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggrega-tion of environmental values.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42, 305–322 .
  • Paz, V. , Nicolaisen-Sobesky, E. , Collado, E. , Horta, S. , Rey, C. , Rivero, M . , Berri-olo, P . , Díaz, M. , Otón, M . , Pérez, A. , Fernández-Theoduloz, G. , Cabana, A. , & Gradin, V. B. (2017). Effect of self-esteem on social interactions during the Ultimatum Game. Psychiatry Research, 252, 247–255.
  • Roth, A. E. , Prasnikar, V. , Okuno-Fujiwara, M. & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: an experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–95.
  • Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. London, Routledge.
  • Staffiero,G. , Exadaktylos, F. , &Espín, A. M. (2013). Accepting zero in the ultimatum game does not reflect selfish preferences. Economics Letters, 121, 236–238.
  • Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & PublicAffairs, 6, 317–344.
  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evi-dence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20( 2), 529-563.
  • Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Econom-ics, 69, 99–118.
  • Tversky, A. (1975). A critique of expected utility theory: descriptive and normative con-siderations. Erkenntnis, 9: 163-173.
  • Tversky, A. , &Kahneman, D. (1980). Judgements of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.)Judgements Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases(pp. 84-98). UK, Cambridge University Press.
  • Tversky, A. , &Kahneman, D. (1983a). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and bias-es. Science, 185:1124–1131.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983b). Extensional versus ıntuitive reasoning: the con-junction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychol Rev. ,90:293-315.
  • Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative repre-sentation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,5:297-323.
  • Tversky, A. ,&Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psy-chol Sci. ,3:305–309.
  • Von Neuman, J. ,& Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behav-ior.USA, Princeton University Press.
  • Weirich, P. (1986). Expected utility and risk. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37(4), 419- 442.
  • Yamagishi, T., Li, Y. , Takagishi, H. , Matsumoto, Y. , & Kiyonari, T. (2014). In search of homoeconomicus.Psychological Science, 25(9), 1699–1711 .
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sosyal
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Gelengül Koçaslan (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ijsser494670, journal = {International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research}, issn = {}, eissn = {2149-5939}, address = {Mahmut DEMİR}, year = {2019}, volume = {5}, pages = {63 - 68}, doi = {10.24289/ijsser.494670}, title = {Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior}, key = {cite}, author = {Koçaslan, Gelengül} }
APA Koçaslan, G . (2019). Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 5 (1), 63-68. DOI: 10.24289/ijsser.494670
MLA Koçaslan, G . "Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior". International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 5 (2019): 63-68 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/ijsser/issue/42293/494670>
Chicago Koçaslan, G . "Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior". International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 5 (2019): 63-68
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior AU - Gelengül Koçaslan Y1 - 2019 PY - 2019 N1 - doi: 10.24289/ijsser.494670 DO - 10.24289/ijsser.494670 T2 - International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 63 EP - 68 VL - 5 IS - 1 SN - -2149-5939 M3 - doi: 10.24289/ijsser.494670 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.494670 Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior %A Gelengül Koçaslan %T Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior %D 2019 %J International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research %P -2149-5939 %V 5 %N 1 %R doi: 10.24289/ijsser.494670 %U 10.24289/ijsser.494670
ISNAD Koçaslan, Gelengül . "Homoeconomicus: the ultimate representative of rational economic behavior". International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research 5 / 1 (Ocak 2019): 63-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.494670