Search

The tragedy of the commons refers to the overuse of resources which are rival in consumption but lack excludability and it also refers to rent dissipation. While the tragedy of the anticommons is a tragedy closely connected with underuse of resources that are rival in consumption and with too strong excludability. The prior studies proved that the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons are symmetric from the perspective of pure mathematics, especially the game theory, which was later refuted by behavioral economics experiments. According to them, the tragedy of the anticommons is severer than the tragedy of the commons. The asymmetry of the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons is a paradox by these different research methods. This paradox shows that there are imperfections in the completely rational economic man hypothesis set up by neoclassical economics. As a fundamental theory, the tragedy of the commons is quite influential in many disciplines, such as microeconomics, public sector economics, ecological economics, environmental economics, management, sociology, property law, and political science. And the tragedy of the anticommons theory has also opened its door of both theoretical research and practical implications since its acceptance by Nobel laureate Buchanan, the main founder of public choice school. Only when theoretical issues are thoroughly discussed and made clear enough, can people avoid misunderstanding or misusing the commons theory. Thus, it is necessary to elucidate the paradox between them. Based on Simon’s bounded rationality, Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory, value function, Thaler’s mental accounting, endowment effect, and other cognitive psychological tools, this study clearly shows that agents’ decision-making process is not just based on the long-believed marginal benefit and marginal cost analysis advocated by traditional neoclassical economists. Agents’ decision-making is a process in which agents selectively absorb, code the objective marginal revenue and marginal cost, and feed relevant information to their brain. Therefore, what plays a directly decisive role is not the objective marginal revenue and marginal cost per se, but the mentally perceived subjective utility of marginal revenue and marginal cost by the human brain. Followed by this research clue, the paradox between the tragedy of the commons and the tragedy of the anticommons is elucidated from the perspective of cognitive psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal is the property of Selcuk University Social Sciences Institute Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Is mainstream economics only about growth, efficiency, and sustainability? Many critics contend so, but the recent state of the art in economics suggests not. Respectively drawing on reformist neoclassical economics, neoclassical microeconomics "proper," and behavioral economics, major studies show that mainstream economics provides theories of inequality and unsustainability. However, the theories of causation utilized remain largely neoclassical. Similarly, the bases for repairing the harms are grounded in neoclassical reasoning, while the mechanisms for restoration—ranging from minimalist interventions and income and substitution effects to behavioral nudges—are still mainstream. Fundamentally, they say little or nothing substantial about ecological imperialism, at the heart of which are rent theft and ecological debt, two critical cornerstones of world ecological crises. Therefore, mainstream economists certainly have, use, and apply theories of inequality and unsustainability, but mainstream economists neither have, use, nor apply transformative theories of social stratification, nor ecological imperialism generally. The overall effect of this disconnect from real‐world ecological crises is not simply that conventional environmental policies are incomplete, but that mainstream economics and conventional policies deflect attention from ecological imperialism behind veils of rhetoric, prices, and behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of Behavioral Economics poses an important question: does it substitute or complement Neoclassical Economics? This article makes an analysis to identify how the substitution-complementarity issue is highly sensitive to the epistemic context. In particular, the paper distinguishes four epistemological contexts: descriptive, explicative, predictive, and prescriptive. The idea that the behavioral substitute the neoclassical approach in descriptive and explicative contexts is defended; however, there is a complementarity in the predictive and prescriptive contexts, where there are some domains in which the neoclassical approach might still work well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]