Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Die Psychologie irrationaler Wirtschaftspolitik am Beispiel des Reformstaus

Contents:

Author Info

  • Heinemann, Friedrich

Abstract

Psychologische Studien belegen vielfältige Abweichungen menschlicher Denk- und Verhaltensweisen von den üblichen Rationalitätsannahmen ökonomischer Modelle. Die traditionelle Ökonomie begegnet diesen Hinweisen begrenzter Rationalität mit Zurückhaltung, auch wenn derartige Ansätze inzwischen auf einzelnen Gebieten, wie etwa der Finanzmarktanalyse im Rahmen der Behavioural Finance Akzeptanz gewinnen. Um so mehr erstaunt es, dass psychologische Einsichten noch kaum Eingang in die Analyse der Wirtschaftspolitik gefunden haben, wo ja nicht einmal das Korrektiv der Märkte zur Rationalität zwingt. Der Wähler hat kaum Anreize zu einer rationalen Beurteilung wirtschaftspolitischer Programme, da seine individuelle Wahlentscheidung praktisch keinen Einfluss auf die Qualität der Wirtschaftspolitik hat. In der politökonomischen Analyse hat dies Kalkül unter dem Terminus der ?rationalen Ignoranz? einen festen Platz. Mit der gleichen Begründung, mit der ein geringer Informationsstand des Wählers für rational erklärt wird, kann nun aber auch die ?rationale Irrationalität? begründet werden: Kein Wähler wird individuell dafür bestraft, wenn er die Beurteilung wirtschaftspolitischer Optionen auf Basis angeborener Instinkte und nicht auf der Grundlage eines Rationalitätskalküls vornimmt. Wenn derartige Irrationalitäten schon eine hilfreiche Rolle zur Erklärung von Verhaltensweisen unter Marktbedingungen etwa im Rahmen der Behavioural Finance spielen, dann ist auch ein Erkenntnisbeitrag bei der Analyse wirtschaftspolitischer Verhaltensweisen zu erwarten. -- Mainstream economists are reluctant to integrate features of bounded rationality into their behavioural assumptions. However, particularly in the field of economic policy the scope for irrational behaviour is given, since voters lack incentives for rational reasoning concerning their voting decision. The explanatory power of irrational behaviour is demonstrated for the example of reform resistance. Status quo preferences, endowment effects and loss aversion are typical deviations from full rationality and explain resistance against beneficial reforms even if there is full information. From this psychological perspective, a major precondition for the implementation of reforms is the loss of the status quo as an available option. This loss might result from changing external constraints caused by political integration (European Union) or market integration (globalisation). Test runs of policy options might also be helpful for overcoming psychological reform resistance.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24357/1/dp0012.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research in its series ZEW Discussion Papers with number 00-12.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:5287

Contact details of provider:
Postal: L 7,1; D - 68161 Mannheim
Phone: +49/621/1235-01
Fax: +49/621/1235-224
Email:
Web page: http://www.zew.de/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
  2. Alesina, Alberto & Drazen, Allan, 1991. "Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1170-88, December.
  3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages S251-78, October.
  4. Dani Rodrik, 1996. "Understanding Economic Policy Reform," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 9-41, March.
  5. Rabin, Matthew, 1997. "Psychology and Economics," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley qt8jd5z5j2, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  6. Smith, Vernon L, 1991. "Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 877-97, August.
  7. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
  8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
  9. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
  10. Fernandez, Raquel & Rodrik, Dani, 1991. "Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1146-55, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Heinemann, Friedrich, 2004. "Explaining Reform Deadlocks," ZEW Discussion Papers 04-39, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  2. Friedrich Heinemann & Michael Förg & Eva Jonas & Eva Traut-Mattausch, 2008. "Psychologische Restriktionen wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(4), pages 383-404, November.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:5287. See general 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

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.