IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000443/020557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Policymakers and Social Scientists Should Adopt Behavioral Economics: An Analysis for the Period 2000-2020

Author

Listed:
  • Inaki Aliende
  • Lorenzo Escot

Abstract

This paper analyzes the advisability of applying behavioral economics (BE) by social researchers and policymakers. Over the last twenty years, the number of contributions about BE has grown exponentially in the scientific literature, reports published by international organizations, and the so-called Behavioral Insight Units (nudge units). However, to consider BE a core discipline, it is necessary to ensure that all such behavioral practice corresponds to a distinctive approach or field of study. This article evaluates whether BE provides a solid methodological and unique approach. It has analyzed twenty relevant articles with the label “behavioral economics” published in the last five years in recognized journals to evaluate whether they follow a distinct method. According to the results, the level of compliance is high (84%), which amplifies the possibilities of BE as an approach in social sciences, besides reinforcing its importance in supporting the implementation of public policies. Nevertheless, the analysis also provides some observations about subsequent developments and consideration of the discipline as a homogeneous approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Inaki Aliende & Lorenzo Escot, 2022. "Why Policymakers and Social Scientists Should Adopt Behavioral Economics: An Analysis for the Period 2000-2020," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 14(2), pages 453-487, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000443:020557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://revfinypolecon.ucatolica.edu.co/article/view/4002
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Hunt Allcott & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Welfare Effects of Nudges: A Case Study of Energy Use Social Comparisons," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 236-276, January.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    4. Nathan Berg, 2014. "The consistency and ecological rationality approaches to normative bounded rationality," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 375-395, December.
    5. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Iñaki Aliende, 2020. "Choice Architects and Behavioral Economics: Creating a Common Framework to Enhance Research and Collaboration," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 9(4), pages 74-82, October.
    8. Hummel, Dennis & Maedche, Alexander, 2019. "How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 47-58.
    9. Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2006. "Behavioral Economics Comes of Age: A Review Essay on Advances in Behavioral Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 712-721, September.
    10. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    11. Nicholas Barberis, 2018. "Richard Thaler and the Rise of Behavioral Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 661-684, July.
    12. Richard H. Thaler, 2016. "Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1577-1600, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Kesternich & Christiane Reif & Dirk Rübbelke, 2017. "Recent Trends in Behavioral Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 403-411, July.
    2. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    3. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2010. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing: Cardinality, Neutrality and Additivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(272), pages 98-123, March.
    4. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    5. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    6. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    7. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    8. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    9. Zamri Ahmad & Haslindar Ibrahim & Jasman Tuyon, 2017. "Institutional investor behavioral biases: syntheses of theory and evidence," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(5), pages 578-603, May.
    10. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    11. Drakopoulos, Stavros A., 2022. "The Conceptual Resilience of the Atomistic Individual in Mainstream Economic Rationality," MPRA Paper 112944, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Michael G. Pollitt & Irina Shaorshadze, 2013. "The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 24, pages 523-546, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Frederiks, Elisha R. & Stenner, Karen & Meikle, Sarah, 2016. "Uptake and usage of cost-reflective electricity pricing: Insights from psychology and behavioural economics," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 455-467.
    14. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
    15. Alessandro Morselli, 2020. "Inequalities between liberal doctrine and Keynesian-oriented conventional economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 86-117,118-.
    16. Damgaard, Mette Trier, 2021. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Nationaløkonomisk tidsskrift, Nationaløkonomisk Forening, vol. 2021(1), pages 1-21.
    17. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    18. Thomas Holtfort, 2019. "From standard to evolutionary finance: a literature survey," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 207-232, June.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:517-533 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Michael David Thomas, 2019. "Reapplying behavioral symmetry: public choice and choice architecture," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 11-25, July.
    21. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2022. "Setting descriptive norm nudges to promote demand for insurance against increasing climate change risk," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 47(1), pages 27-49, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    behavioral economics; nudge units; cognitive bias; bounded rationality; methodological framework; economic doctrines; prospect theory.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B50 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - General
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • H30 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000443:020557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Universidad Católica de Colombia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feuccco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.