Search

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]

The article focuses on neoclassical economic theory and the realities of individual decision-making described by behavioral economics to begin to grapple with the complex problem and people enroll in health insurance policies. It mentions repeal will have a negative impact on the insurance markets and negative implications of decreased health insurance enrollment, beyond just the instability that healthy people leaving insurance markets will cause.

"Behavioral economics" attempts to incorporate insights from other social sciences, especially psychology, in order to enrich the standard economic model. The interest in the psychology of human behavior returns economics to its earliest roots. Adam Smith talked about such key concepts as loss aversion, overconfidence and self-control. Nevertheless, the modern version of behavioral economics introduced in the 1980s met with resistance by some economists, who preferred to retain the standard neo-classical model. They introduced several arguments for why psychology could safely be ignored. In this essay I show that these arguments have been rejected, both theoretically and empirically, so it is time to move on. The new approach should include two different kinds of theories: normative models that characterize the optimal solution to specific problems and descriptive models that capture how humans actually behave. The latter theories will incorporate some variables I call supposedly irrelevant factors, which can improve the explanatory power of economic models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We use playing time in the National Basketball Association to investigate whether sunk costs affect decision making. Behavioral economics implies that teams favor players chosen in the lottery and first round of the draft because of the greater financial and psychic commitment to them. Neoclassical economics implies that only current performance matters. We build on previous work in two ways. First, we better capture potential playing time by accounting for time lost to injuries or suspension. Second, we use regression discontinuity to capture changes when a player's draft position crosses thresholds. We find that teams allocate no more time to highly drafted players. ( JEL L83, J23, D03) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between the discipline of Behavioural Economics and the Neoclassical School. On the basis of the available literature, the paper aims to investigate if the two branches are totally opposite, or if the behavioural theories only extend and complement the mainstream economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles discusses heterodox economics and economic sociology. Theoretical perspectives and how they affect markets in social institutions and processes are explored. Social factors such as norms and heuristics which form and guide individual preferences affect individual economic behavior as recognized by behavioral economics. The conceptual foundations of the neoclassical understanding of markets is outlined.