Time to abandon group thinking in economics
AbstractGroup thinking is the notion that animals do those things that maximize the chance of survival of their species. It is wrong because natural selection does not favor what is good for the group or the species; it favors what is good for the individual. Here, I show through examples how group thinking also pervades economics. In connection with the fallacy of group thinking, I also discuss how economics fails to ground itself in the underlying knowledge provided by biology. I also argue that economists need to redirect their conventional approach to study group behavior. Current macroeconomics is reductionist while the route followed by biology, physics, and chemistry was to resort to a different approach when focusing on macro systems made up of a large number of heterogeneous micro units. The group level pattern self-organizes as it is not encoded directly in the individual-level rules. And here the right mathematical models can help deduce hidden connections between the interactions of individuals and the patterns that emerge at the group level.
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 45660.
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
group thinking; biology; economics;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
- D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
- Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-06 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2013-04-06 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-EVO-2013-04-06 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-HME-2013-04-06 (Heterodox Microeconomics)
- NEP-HPE-2013-04-06 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-SOC-2013-04-06 (Social Norms & Social Capital)
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.:
- Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2008. "Economics need a scientific revolution," Papers 0810.5306, arXiv.org.
- Suhadolnik, Nicolas & Galimberti, Jaqueson & Da Silva, Sergio, 2010.
"Robot traders can prevent extreme events in complex stock markets,"
23923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Suhadolnik, Nicolas & Galimberti, Jaqueson & Da Silva, Sergio, 2010. "Robot traders can prevent extreme events in complex stock markets," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(22), pages 5182-5192.
- Da Silva, Sergio, 2009.
"Does Macroeconomics Need Microeconomic Foundations?,"
Economics Discussion Papers
2009-3, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Da Silva, Sergio, 2009. "Does Macroeconomics Need Microeconomic Foundations?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 3(23), pages 1-11.
- Da Silva, Sergio, 2013. "The mutual gains from trade moderate the parent-offspring conflict," MPRA Paper 46627, University Library of Munich, Germany.
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.