IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Commentaires sur « Neuroéconomie : une relecture critique »

Listed author(s):
  • Angela A. Stanton

[eng] Neuroeconomics : A Critique of « Neuroeconomics : A Critical Reconsideration ». Some economists believe that the work of neuroeconomists threatens the theory of economics. Glenn Harrison’s paper "Neuroeconomics : A Critical Reconsideration" provides some support for this threatened view, though some of the points he makes are disguised (Harrison, 2008). The field of neuroeconomics is barely into its teenage years ; and it is trying to do what ? Criticize and redesign the field of economics developed over hundreds of years ? But that is not what neuroeconomics is trying to do, in spite of all the efforts of some economists trying to place it into that shoebox (see the argument in great detail in Caplin and Schotter (2008)). Neuroeconomics is a Mendelian-Economics of sort ; it is a science that is able to generate data by fixing the environment to some degree, varying a single independent variable for its affects, and is able to see each individual’s choices from initiation of the decision-making process to its outcome. Mainstream economics, on the other hand, looks at the average of the outcomes of many individuals and proposes how people chose those outcomes, retroactively. The two fields, neuroeconomics and mainstream economics, are evaluating two sides of the same coin : one with and the other without ceteris paribus ; they are not necessarily in conflict with one another. [fre] Le champ exploré par la neuroéconomie montre qu’elle est à peine entrée dans son adolescence : qu’est-ce que la neuroéconomie est en train de réaliser ? Reconcevoir la science économique qui a été développée depuis plus de 100 ans jusqu’à maintenant ? Non, la neuroéconomie ne prend pas cette direction, nonobstant tous les efforts de quelques économistes pour vite la ranger dans une boîte à chaussure (voir dans le détail cet argument développé par Caplin et Schotter [2008]). La neuroéconomie se conçoit plutôt comme une espèce d’économie « à la Mendel » ; elle est une science capable de produire des données en fixant, dans une certaine mesure, l’environnement et en observant les choix individuels du début du processus de décision jusqu’à sa réalisation. L’économie dominante, en revanche, regarde la moyenne des résultats obtenus par plusieurs individus et propose une explication de la raison pour laquelle les agents économiques ont pu choisir en moyenne ce résultat. Ces deux domaines théoriques, la neuroéconomie et l’économie dominante, sont en train d’évaluer en fait les deux faces de la même pièce ; l’une avec et l’autre sans la condition ceteris paribus ; et en toute hypothèse on ne peut pas conclure à un conflit entre ces deux champs théoriques.

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://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3406/rfeco.2009.1708
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://www.persee.fr/doc/rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4_1708
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Programme National Persée in its journal Revue française d'économie.

Volume (Year): 23 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 139-157

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:prs:rfreco:rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4_1708
Note: DOI:10.3406/rfeco.2009.1708
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.persee.fr/collection/rfeco

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:rfreco:rfeco_0769-0479_2009_num_23_4_1708. 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: (Equipe PERSEE)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.