IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v3y2007i03p323-349_00.html

The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide

Author

Listed:
  • ENGEL, CHRISTOPH
  • WEBER, ELKE U.

Abstract

Institutions influence and shape behaviour. This paper suggests one way in which they do so that has been largely overlooked in institutional analysis and design. When faced with a decision or problem, people have more than one mechanism at their disposition for addressing it. The human mind offers multiple tools, ranging from conscious deliberation to spontaneous, affective reactions. Relying on technology or experts, decision-makers can also muster additional resources. Often, the meta-choice of which decision-making or problem-solving mode is used has an impact on the output. Some normative goals are more likely met if the decision-maker uses a specific problem-solving mode. We argue that the meta-choice of which problem-solving mode to use for a given decision can be influenced by institutions. In the interest of defining access points for institutions, we develop a conceptual framework for the selection and implementation of decision-making and problem-solving modes.

Suggested Citation

  • Engel, Christoph & Weber, Elke U., 2007. "The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 323-349, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:3:y:2007:i:03:p:323-349_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137407000744/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mieke Meurs, 2013. "What Makes a Farmer? The Limited Expansion of Commercial Farming Among Bulgarian Smallholders," Working Papers 2013-08, American University, Department of Economics.
    2. Christoph Engel & Rima-Maria Rahal, 2022. "Eye-Tracking as a Method for Legal Research," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2022_07, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    3. Christoph Engel & Wolf Singer, 2007. "Better Than Conscious? The Brain, the Psyche, Behavior, and Institutions," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2007_24, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    4. Christoph Engel, 2007. "Institutions for Intuitive Man," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2007_12, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    5. Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2012. "Psychology and behavioral economics lessons for the design of a green growth strategy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6240, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:3:y:2007:i:03:p:323-349_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.