Unterschiede im Denken zwischen Ökonomen und Laien - Erklärungsansätze zur Verbesserung der wirtschaftspolitischen Beratung
Recent findings in Economic Psychology on the thinking and judgment of economic laymen can help to improve economic policy advice. First, based on psychological theories and empirical findings, the notion of the Homo oeconomicus is challenged. The economic situation is judged by laymen using implicit theories and biases, which are not in line with neoclassical economics. Then, the relevance of these theories and heuristics is shown empirically by the systematically different opinions of economists and non-economists on economic policy measures like minimum wages and maximum salaries. Conclusions for policy advisors complement the analysis. Copyright 2009 die Autoren Journal compilation 2009, Verein für Socialpolitik und Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 10 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (02)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1465-6493|
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=1465-6493|
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.:
- Haferkamp, Alexandra & Fetchenhauer, Detlef & Belschak, Frank & Enste, Dominik, 2009. "Efficiency versus fairness: The evaluation of labor market policies by economists and laypeople," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 527-539, August.
- Sears, David O. & Funk, Carolyn L., 1990. "The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 247-271.
- Luciano Andreozzi, 2004. "A Note on Paradoxes in Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 3-19, 02.
- Matthew Rabin., 1997.
"Psychology and Economics,"
Economics Working Papers
97-251, University of California at Berkeley.
- Richard H. Thaler, 2000. "From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 133-141, Winter.
- 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.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-41, September.
- George A. Akerlof, 2007. "The Missing Motivation in Macroeconomics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 5-36, March.
- Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006.
"A theory of reciprocity,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
- Armin Falk & Urs Fischbacher, 2001. "A Theory of Reciprocity," CESifo Working Paper Series 457, CESifo Group Munich.
- Armin Falk & Urs Fischbacher, . "A Theory of Reciprocity," IEW - Working Papers 006, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2001. "A Theory of Reciprocity," CEPR Discussion Papers 3014, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bryan Caplan, 2007.
"Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies
[The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies]," Introductory Chapters, Princeton University Press.
- Baron, Jonathan & Kemp, Simon, 2004. "Support for trade restrictions, attitudes, and understanding of comparative advantage," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 565-580, October.
- Allen, Michael W. & Ng, Sik Hung & Leiser, David, 2005. "Adult economic model and values survey: Cross-national differences in economic beliefs," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 159-185, April.
- Kemp, Simon, 2007. "Psychology and opposition to free trade," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(01), pages 25-44, March.
- Friedrich Heinemann & Michael Förg & Eva Jonas & Eva Traut-Mattausch, 2008. "Psychologische Restriktionen wirtschaftspolitischer Reformen," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 9(4), pages 383-404, November.
- Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:perwir:v:10:y:2009:i:1:p:60-78. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.