The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature
AbstractCurrent economics textbooks and neoclassical economists justify a theory of consumer behaviour based on utility maximisation on a priori grounds. This methodology follows Lionel Robbins' idea that economic theory is based on logical deduction from postulates which are "simple and indisputable facts of experience." Strong evidence has emerged from many different lines of research that these "simple and indisputable facts of experience" are contradicted by human behaviour. In this article, we summarise some of the main contradictions between predictions of utility theory and actual human behaviour. Efforts to resolve these contradictions continue to be made within orthodox frameworks, but it appears likely that a paradigm shift is required.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Inderscience Enterprises Ltd in its journal Int. J. of Pluralism and Economics Education.
Volume (Year): 3 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID==319
behavioural economics; neoclassical utility theory; literature review; consumer behaviour; human behaviour.;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Graham Langley).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.