The propensity function as formal passkey to economic action
AbstractThe purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate how the interaction of the structural axiomatic core and the behavioral propensity function produces plausible outcomes in the product market. The propensity function is a compact formal expression of random, semi-random, and deterministic behavioral assumptions. Its two components are direction and magnitude of the rate of change of an elementary axiomatic variable. A type-C propensity function is the formal container for a familiar conception that Samuelson identified as qualitative prediction. Two type-C functions are sufficient to produce stochastic stability and optimality in the product market.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 34051.
Date of creation: 11 Oct 2011
Date of revision:
New framework of concepts; Structure-centric; Axiom set; Qualitative prediction; Tendency laws; Separability; Determinism–indeterminism; Information function; Action function;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Economics; Underlying Principles
- D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, 2012.
"Primary and Secondary Markets,"
Economics Working Paper Archive
wp_741, Levy Economics Institute, The.
- Boland, Lawrence A, 1981. "On the Futility of Criticizing the Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1031-36, December.
- Nava Ashraf & Colin F. Camerer & George Loewenstein, 2005. "Adam Smith, Behavioral Economist," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 131-145, Summer.
- Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Giorgio Fagiolo, 2003.
"Learning in Evolutionary Environments,"
LEM Papers Series
2003/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
- Backhouse, Roger E, 1998. "If Mathematics Is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Must Be Informal Too," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1848-58, November.
- Keuzenkamp, H.A. & McAleer, M., 1994. "Simplicity, scientific inference and econometric modelling," Discussion Paper 1994-56, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2011. "Properties of an economy without human beings," MPRA Paper 31497, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2011. "Qualitative and temporal aggregation," MPRA Paper 33345, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Gavin Kennedy, 2009. "Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: From Metaphor to Myth," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(2), pages 239-263, May.
- Rosen Sherwin, 1997.
"Austrian and Neoclassical Economics: Any Gains From Trade?,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
133, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Sherwin Rosen, 1997. "Austrian and Neoclassical Economics: Any Gains from Trade?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 139-152, Fall.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.