IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v69y2009i2p335-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selfishness, cooperation, the evolutionary point of view and its implications for economics

Author

Listed:
  • Pienkowski, Dariusz

Abstract

The assumed selfishness of market actors could be considered in the context of two perspectives: macroeconomic and microeconomic. The first concerns the market mechanism as the most effective from the social well-being or the wealth of a nation points of view. The latter is based on the premises of the nature of human beings. I have distinguished between two possible ways of understanding selfish forms of behaviour in the market: as rational economic behaviour i.e. the most effective from the gains and losses point of view (i.e. public interests in the works of A. Smith) or as selfish from the psychological point of view (this is mostly presented by J. S. Mill's theory). The first approach seems to be concerned with the creation of the most effective market mechanism from the State's point of view. In the context of historical processes over 400Â years, cultural evolution "has been promoting" selfish behaviour; for example, it was widely presented in T. Hobbes' works and then for over 200Â years, the theory of A. Smith has been supporting and moulding the institutional context of market and social behaviour. Thus, positive economics describes the market created by the ideas of a neo-classical paradigm, which is based on the normative premises of A. Smith and J. S. Mill. Moreover, the virtual market behaviour described by "effects" (f. e. Veblen's effect) and failures seems to be a manifestation of a discrepancy between market reality and the classical assumptions. The social evolution of human beings has been advantageous to the human species. Moreover, from the social point of view, pro-social behaviour is "natural" as well as desirable and it has been preferred by the cultural evolution. Competitiveness assumes that somebody has to lose, because someone gains. Cooperation looks for gains for all the players. The choice is political, and not imposed by selfishness.

Suggested Citation

  • Pienkowski, Dariusz, 2009. "Selfishness, cooperation, the evolutionary point of view and its implications for economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 335-344, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2009:i:2:p:335-344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(07)00503-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    2. H. Leibenstein, 1950. "Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 64(2), pages 183-207.
    3. Samuel Bowles & Robert Boyd & Colin Camerer & Ernst Fehr & Herbert Gintis & Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2001. "In search of homo economicus: Experiments in 15 small-scale societies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00068, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Ferber, Marianne A. & Nelson, Julie A. (ed.), 1993. "Beyond Economic Man," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226242019.
    5. van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & Munda, Giuseppe, 2000. "Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 43-61, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kohler, Stefan, 2011. "Altruism and fairness in experimental decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 101-109.
    2. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    3. Levine, Jordan & Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: Exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 22-32.
    4. Alberto Bisin & Thierry Verdier, 2010. "The Economics of Cultural Transmission and Socialization," Post-Print halshs-00754788, HAL.
    5. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    6. Litina, Anastasia, 2012. "Unfavorable land endowment, cooperation, and reversal of fortune," MPRA Paper 39702, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Auerbach, Jan U. & Fonseca, Miguel A., 2020. "Preordered service in contract enforcement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-149.
    8. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
    9. Campos-Ortiz, Francisco & Putterman, Louis & Ahn, T.K. & Balafoutas, Loukas & Batsaikhan, Mongoljin & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Security of Property as a Public Good: Institutions, Socio-Political Environment and Experimental Behavior in Five Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 6982, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    11. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo, 2008. "Where are you from? Cultural differences in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2319-2329, December.
    12. Rojas, Cristian & Cinner, Joshua, 2020. "Do market and trust contexts spillover into public goods contributions? Evidence from experimental games in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Christian Cordes & Wolfram Elsner & Claudius Graebner & Torsten Heinrich & Joshua Henkel & Henning Schwardt & Georg Schwesinger & Tong-Yaa Su, 2021. "The collapse of cooperation: the endogeneity of institutional break-up and its asymmetry with emergence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1291-1315, September.
    14. Frank Cowell & Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "The tyranny puzzle in social preferences: an empirical investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 765-792, December.
    15. Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Lau, C. Oscar, 2017. "Soft transactions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 122-134.
    16. José-Luis Godos-Díez & Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García, 2019. "How Does Reciprocity Affect Undergraduate Student Orientation towards Stakeholders?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-15, October.
    17. Sujoy Chakravarty, 2022. "How WEIRD Are We? How the Adoption of Certain Social Norms Altered Both Our Biology and Social Behaviour and, Ultimately, the Wealth of Nations," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 47(4), pages 317-321, December.
    18. Kuiran Shi & Hujie Ma, 2016. "Evolution Of Trust In A Dual-Channel Supply Chain Considering Reciprocal Altruistic Behavior," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06n07), pages 1-30, September.
    19. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    20. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2009:i:2:p:335-344. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.