DOCSLIB.ORG

Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: a Pragmatic Perspective†

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: a Pragmatic Perspective† American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 2015, 105(5): 1–33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108 RICHARD T. ELY LECTURE Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective† By Raj Chetty* Starting with Simon 1955 , Kahneman and of each viewpoint in different settings e.g., List Tversky 1979 , and Thaler( 1980) , a large body 2004; Levitt and List 2007; DellaVigna( 2009 . of research( has) incorporated( insights) from psy- In this paper, I approach the debate )on chology—such as loss aversion, present bias, and behavioral economics from a more pragmatic, inattention—into economic models.1 Although policy-oriented perspective. Instead of pos- this subfield of behavioral economics has grown ing the central research question as “Are the very rapidly, the neoclassical model remains the assumptions of the neoclassical economic benchmark for most economic applications, and model valid?,” the pragmatic approach starts the validity of behavioral economics as an alter- from a policy question for example, “How native paradigm continues to be debated. can we increase savings rates?”( and incorpo- The debate about behavioral economics is rates behavioral factors to the extent) that they often framed as a question about the founda- improve empirical predictions and policy deci- tional assumptions of neoclassical economics. sions.2 This approach follows the widely applied Are individuals rational? Do they optimize in methodology of positive economics advocated market settings? This debate has proved to be by Friedman 1953 , who argued that it is more contentious, with compelling arguments in favor useful to evaluate( economic) models on the accu- racy of their empirical predictions than on their assumptions.3 While Friedman used this reason- * Harvard University, 226 Littauer Center, Cambridge, ing to argue in favor of neoclassical models, I MA 02138, and NBER e-mail: [email protected] . Prepared for the Richard T.( Ely Lecture, American Economic) argue that modern evidence calls for incorpo- Association, January 3, 2015. A video of the lecture is rating behavioral economics into the analysis of available. I thank Saurabh Bhargava, Stefano DellaVigna, important economic questions. Nathaniel Hendren, Emir Kamenica, Lawrence Katz, David I classify the implications of behavioral eco- Laibson, Benjamin Lockwood, Sendhil Mullainathan, Ariel nomics for public policy into three domains. Pakes, James Poterba, Matthew Rabin, Josh Schwartzstein, Andrei Shleifer, and Dmitry Taubinsky for helpful com- Each of these domains has a long intellectual ments and discussions. I am very grateful to my collabo- tradition in economics, showing that from a rators John Friedman, Nathaniel Hendren, Lawrence Katz, pragmatic perspective, behavioral economics Patrick Kline, Kory Kroft, Soren Leth-Petersen, Adam represents a natural progression of rather than Looney, Torben Nielsen, Tore Olsen, and Emmanuel Saez a challenge to neoclassical economic( methods. for their contributions to the studies discussed in this paper. ) Augustin Bergeron, Jamie Fogel, Michael George, Nikolaus First, behavioral economics offers new pol- Hildebrand, and Benjamin Scuderi provided outstand- icy tools that can be used to influence behavior. ing research assistance. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation. † Go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108 to visit 2 I focus on factors that can be changed through policy, the article page for additional materials and author disclo- but much of the analysis in this paper also applies to predict- sure statement. ing the effects of changes in other exogenous factors, such 1 Although the implications of psychology for economics as technology. have been formalized using mathematical models only in 3 In a widely cited example, Friedman points out that recent decades, some of these ideas were discussed quali- the behavior of an expert billiards player may be accurately tatively by the founders of classical economics themselves, modeled using complex mathematical formulas even though including Adam Smith Ashraf, Camerer, and Loewenstein the assumption that the player himself knows and applies 2005 . ( these formulas is likely to be incorrect. ) 1 2 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MAY 2015 Insights from psychology offer new tools—such year to subsidize retirement saving in 401 k as changing default options or framing incen- and IRA accounts Joint Committee on Taxation( ) tives as losses instead of gains—that expand the 2012 . I summarize( recent evidence showing set of outcomes that can be achieved through that such) subsidies have much smaller effects on policy. This expansion of the policy set parallels savings rates than “nudges” Thaler and Sunstein the transition in the public finance literature 2008 such as defaults and automatic( enrollment from studying linear commodity taxes Ramsey plans) that are motivated by behavioral models of 1927 to a much richer set of nonlinear (tax poli- passive choice. These new policy tools allow us cies )Mirrlees 1971 . to achieve savings rates that may have been unat- Second,( behavioral) economics can yield tainable with the tools suggested by neoclassical better predictions about the effects of existing model. These empirical findings are very valu- policies. Incorporating behavioral features such able irrespective of the underlying behavioral as inertia into neoclassical models can yield model, although theory remains essential for better predictions about the effects of economic extrapolation e.g., predicting behavior in other incentives such as retirement savings subsidies settings and (for welfare analysis e.g., deter- or income tax policies. Moreover, these behav- mining )whether policymakers should( be trying ioral features can help econometricians develop to increase savings rates to begin with . new counterfactuals control groups to identify The second application illustrates that) behav- policy impacts. ( ) ioral models can be useful in predicting the Third, behavioral economics generates new impacts of existing policies even if they do not welfare implications. Behavioral biases such produce new policy tools. Here, I focus on the as inattention or myopia often generate differ( - effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit EITC — ences between welfare )from a policymaker’s the largest means-tested cash transfer program( ) in perspective, which depends on an agent’s expe- the United States—on households’ labor supply rienced utility his actual well-being , and the decisions. The EITC provides subsidies that are agent’s decision( utility the objective) the agent intended to encourage low-wage individuals to maximizes when making( choices . Accounting work more. I discuss recent evidence showing for these differences between )decision and that individuals living in areas with a high den- experienced utilities improves predictions about sity of EITC claimants have greater knowledge the welfare consequences of policies. The dif- about the parameters of the EITC schedule and, ference between the policymaker’s and agent’s accordingly, are more responsive to the program. objectives in behavioral models parallels non- These differences in knowledge across areas pro- welfarist approaches to optimal policy Sen vide new counterfactuals to identify the impacts ( 1985; Kanbur, Pirttilä, and Tuomala 2006 and of the EITC on labor supply decisions and reveal the techniques used to identify agents’ experi) - that the program has been quite successful in enced utilities resemble those used in the long increasing earnings among low-wage individu- literature on externalities Pigou 1920 . als. These results demonstrate that even if one I illustrate these implications( of behavioral) cannot directly manipulate perceptions of the economics for public policy using a set of appli- EITC, accounting for the differences in knowl- cations drawn from recent research. The appli- edge across areas is useful in understanding the cations focus on three major decisions people effects of the existing incentives. make over the course of their lives: how much to The first two applications focus on the posi- save, how much to work, and where to live. Each tive implications of behavioral economics, i.e., application is motivated by a policy question predicting the effects of policies on behavior. that has been studied extensively using neoclas- The third application shows how behavioral sical models. My objective here is to illustrate models also provide new insights into the wel- how incorporating insights from behavioral eco- fare consequences and optimal design of poli- nomics can yield better answers to these long- cies. I illustrate these normative implications by standing policy questions. considering policies such as housing voucher In the first application, I show how behavioral subsidies whose goal is to change low-income economics offers new policy tools to increase families’ choice of neighborhoods. Recent retirement saving. The US federal government empirical studies have shown that some neigh- currently spends approximately $100 billion per borhoods generate significantly better outcomes VOL. 105 NO. 5 RICHARD T. ELY LECTURE 3 for children yet do not have higher housing costs. change behavior and increase welfare if agents Both neoclassical models and models featuring suffer from behavioral biases without distorting behavioral biases e.g., present-bias or imperfect behavior if agents optimize. Model uncertainty information can (explain why families do not can thus provide a new argument
Load more

Recommended publications
  • When Does Behavioural Economics Really Matter?
    When does behavioural economics really matter? Ian McAuley, University of Canberra and Centre for Policy Development (www.cpd.org.au) Paper to accompany presentation to Behavioural Economics stream at Australian Economic Forum, August 2010. Summary Behavioural economics integrates the formal study of psychology, including social psychology, into economics. Its empirical base helps policy makers in understanding how economic actors behave in response to incentives in market transactions and in response to policy interventions. This paper commences with a short description of how behavioural economics fits into the general discipline of economics. The next section outlines the development of behavioural economics, including its development from considerations of individual psychology into the fields of neurology, social psychology and anthropology. It covers developments in general terms; there are excellent and by now well-known detailed descriptions of the specific findings of behavioural economics. The final section examines seven contemporary public policy issues with suggestions on how behavioural economics may help develop sound policy. In some cases Australian policy advisers are already using the findings of behavioural economics to advantage. It matters most of the time In public policy there is nothing novel about behavioural economics, but for a long time it has tended to be ignored in formal texts. Like Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain who was surprised to find he had been speaking prose all his life, economists have long been guided by implicit knowledge of behavioural economics, particularly in macroeconomics. Keynes, for example, understood perfectly the “money illusion” – people’s tendency to think of money in nominal rather than real terms – in his solution to unemployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Rational Choice: the Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES RESTORING RATIONAL CHOICE: THE CHALLENGE OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL REGULATION John Y. Campbell Working Paper 22025 http://www.nber.org/papers/w22025 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2016 This paper is the Ely Lecture delivered at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association on January 3, 2016. I thank the Sloan Foundation for financial support, and my coauthors Steffen Andersen, Cristian Badarinza, Laurent Calvet, Howell Jackson, Brigitte Madrian, Kasper Meisner Nielsen, Tarun Ramadorai, Benjamin Ranish, Paolo Sodini, and Peter Tufano for joint work that I draw upon here. I also thank Cristian Badarinza for his work with international survey data on household balance sheets, Laurent Bach, Laurent Calvet, and Paolo Sodini for sharing their results on Swedish wealth inequality, Ben Ranish for his analysis of Indian equity data, Annamaria Lusardi for her assistance with financial literacy survey data, Steven Bass, Sean Collins, Emily Gallagher, and Sarah Holden of ICI and Jack VanDerhei of EBRI for their assistance with data on US retirement savings, Eduardo Davila and Paul Rothstein for correspondence and discussions about behavioral welfare economics, and Daniel Fang for able research assistance. I have learned a great deal from my service on the Academic Research Council of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and from conversations with CFPB staff. Finally I gratefully acknowledge insightful comments from participants in the Sixth Miami Behavioral
    [Show full text]
  • ECON 1820: Behavioral Economics Spring 2015 Brown University Course Description Within Economics, the Standard Model of Be
    ECON 1820: Behavioral Economics Spring 2015 Brown University Course Description Within economics, the standard model of behavior is that of a perfectly rational, self interested utility maximizer with unlimited cognitive resources. In many cases, this provides a good approximation to the types of behavior that economists are interested in. However, over the past 30 years, experimental and behavioral economists have documented ways in which the standard model is not just wrong, but is wrong in ways that are important for economic outcomes. Understanding these behaviors, and their implications, is one of the most exciting areas of current economic inquiry. The aim of this course is to provide a grounding in the main areas of study within behavioral economics, including temptation and self control, fairness and reciprocity, reference dependence, bounded rationality and choice under risk and uncertainty. For each area we will study three things: 1. The evidence that indicates that the standard economic model is missing some important behavior 2. The models that have been developed to capture these behaviors 3. Applications of these models to (for example) finance, labor and development economics As well as the standard lectures, homework assignments, exams and so on, you will be asked to participate in economic experiments, the data from which will be used to illustrate some of the principals in the course. There will also be a certain small degree of classroom ‘flipping’, with a portion of many lectures given over to group problem solving. Finally, an integral part of the course will be a research proposal that you must complete by the end of the course, outlining a novel piece of research that you would be interested in doing.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Economics Fischbacher 2009 2010
    Behavioral Economics, Winter Term 2009/2010 Urs Fischbacher, [email protected] Mo 14-16 Uhr (G309) Neoclassical economic models rest on the assumptions of rationality and selfishness. Behavioral economics investigates departures from these assumptions and develops alternative models. In this lecture, we will discuss inconsistencies in intertemporal decisions, the role of reference points, money illusion and non-selfish behavior. We will analyze models that aim in a better description of actual human behavior. Content 19.10.2009 Introduction 26.10.2009 Intertemporal choice (β, δ ) preferences 02.11.2009 Consumption optimization 09.11.2009 Empirical tests 16.11.2009 Reference points Introduction 23.11.2009 Köszegi und Rabin (2006) 30.11.2009 Empirical tests 07.12.2009 Money Illusion 14.12.2009 Dual selfs Animal spirit model 21.12.2009 Non -selfish prefernces Introduction 11.01.2010 Social Preference Theories: Inequity Aversion 18.01.2010 Social Preference Theories: Reciprocity 25.01.2010 Testing Theories 01.02.2010 Field evidence 08.02.2010 Questions and Answers Main literature You find an entertaining introduction in behavioral economics in George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller, 2009, “Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism”, Princeton University Press, Princeton. We will focus on theoretical papers. The main papers are, in order of appearance: O’Donoghue, Ted and Matthew Rabin, 1999, “Doing it Now or Later,” American Economic Review, 89(1), 103-24. David Laibson, Andrea Repetto and Jeremy Tobacman (2003) “A Debt Puzzle” in eds. Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, Michael Woodford, Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Economics: In Honor of Edmund S.
    [Show full text]
  • David Laibson RAND Summer 2006
    David Laibson RAND Summer 2006 All readings are recommended. Starred readings will be particularly useful complements for the lecture. George Akerlof "Procastination and Obedience," The Richard T. Ely Lecture, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1991. *George-Marios Angeletos, David Laibson, Andrea Repetto, Jeremy Tobacman and Stephen Weinberg,“The Hyperbolic Consumption Model: Calibration, Simulation, and Empirical Evaluation ” Journal of Economic Perspectives, August 2001, pp. 47-68. Shlomo Benartzi and Richard H. Thaler "How Much Is Investor Autonomy Worth?" Journal of Finance, 2002, 57(4), pp. 1593-616. Camerer, Colin F., George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec. Mar. 2005. "Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics." Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 34, No. 1. Colin Camerer, Samuel Issacharoff, George Loewenstein, Ted O'Donoghue, and Matthew Rabin. Jan 2003. "Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for 'Assymetric Paternalism.'" University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 151, 1211- 1254. *James Choi, David Laibson, and Brigitte Madrian. $100 Bills on the Sidewalk: Suboptimal Saving in 401(k) Plans July 16, 2005. *James Choi, Brigitte Madrian, David Laibson, and Andrew Metrick. Optimal Defaults and Active Decisions December 3, 2004. James Choi, David Laibson, and Brigitte C. Madrian “Are Education and Empowerment Enough? Under-Diversification in 401(k) Plans” forthcoming, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. *James Choi, David Laibson, Brigitte Madrian, and Andrew Metrick “Optimal Defaults” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May 2003, pp. 180-185. Dominique J.-F. de Quervain, Urs Fischbacher, Valerie Treyer, Melanie Schellhammer, Ulrich Schnyder, Alfred Buck, Ernst Fehr. The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment Science 305, 27 August 2004, 1254-1258 Shane Frederick, George Loewenstein, and O'Donoghue, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Loss Aversion, Moral Hazard, and Stochastic Contracts
    Loss Aversion, Moral Hazard, and Stochastic Contracts By Hoa Ho∗ Draft: June 6, 2021 I examine whether stochastic contracts benefit the principal in the setting of moral hazard and loss aversion. Incorporating that the agent is expectation-based loss averse and allowing the principal to add noise to performance signals, I find that stochastic contracts reduce the principal's implementation cost in comparison to de- terministic contracts. The optimal stochastic contract pays a high wage whenever good signals are realized and with a positive prob- ability when bad signals are realized. Surprisingly, if performance signals are highly informative about the agent's action, stochastic contracts strictly dominate the optimal deterministic contract for almost any degree of loss aversion. The findings have an impor- tant implication for designing contracts for loss-averse agents: the principal should insure the agent against wage uncertainty by em- ploying stochastic contracts that increase the probability of a high wage. JEL: D82, D86, M12, M52 Keywords: loss aversion, moral hazard, stochastic contracts, reference-dependent preferences The interplay between risk aversion and incentives is central to the moral haz- ard literature, especially in designing an optimal contract. In this literature, one of the very few general results, as Bolton and Dewatripont (2005) argue, is the informativeness principle. This theory, going back to Holmstrom et al. (1979), Holmstrom (1982), and Grossman and Hart (1983), states that a wage contract ∗ LMU Munich, Department
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Thaler and the Rise of Behavioral Economics
    Richard Thaler and the Rise of Behavioral Economics Nicholas Barberis Yale University April 2018∗ Abstract Richard Thaler was awarded the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to behavioral economics. In this article, I review and discuss these contributions. JEL classification: B2, D9, G1 Keywords: endowment effect, prospect theory, mental accounting, nudge ∗I am grateful to Hunt Allcott, Ingvild Almas, James Choi, Stefano DellaVigna, Keith Ericson, Owen Lamont, Ulrike Malmendier, Matthew Rabin, and Jesse Shapiro for helpful discussions about the content of this article. 1 I. Introduction From the 18th century to the first half of the 20th century, the leading economists of the day – figures such as Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Irving Fisher – were known to bring aspects of human psychology into their analysis of the economy. By the middle of the 20th century, however, this practice was less common, and with the advent of the rational expectations revolution in the 1960s, economists began to focus almost exclusively on models with the same, tightly-specified assumptions about individual psychology: that people have rational beliefs, and that they make decisions according to Expected Utility. In the early 1980s, a small group of economists began to argue that the rational ex- pectations revolution had gone too far, and that to understand many important economic phenomena, it was critical to develop new models that made assumptions about human be- havior that were psychologically more realistic, and that, in particular, allowed for less than fully rational thinking. This message was roundly dismissed at first, sometimes in scornful terms, but it gradually gained traction.
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew Rabin and Richard Ho Thaler
    Journal of Economic Perspectives- .Volume 15, Number 1. -Winter 2001. -Pages 219-232 Matthew Rabin and Richard Ho Thaler conomics can be distinguished from other social sciences by the belief that most (all?) behavior can be explained by assuming that rational agents with I stable, well-<lefined preferences interact in markets that (eventually) clear. An empirical result qualifies as an anomaly if it i~ difficult to "rationalize" or if implausible assumptions are necessary to explain it within the paradigm. Sugges- tions for future topics should be sent to Richard Thaler, c/oJournal of Economic Perspectives, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, or ([email protected]). Introduction Most of the columns in this "Anomalies" series have discussed empirical results that, if taken at face value, immediately strike economists as violations of the standard economic model. Risk aversion, the topic of this entry in the series, is rather different. Here the behavior we will point to--the hesitation over risky monetary prospects even when they involve an expected gain-will not strike most economists as surprising. Indeed, economists have a simple and elegant explanation for risk aversion: It derives from expected utility maximization of a concave utility-Qf-wealth function. This model is used ubiquitously in theoretical and empirical economic research. Despite its central .Matthew Rabin is Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, and visiting BP Professor of Economics, London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom. Richard H. Thaler is the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics and Behavioral Science, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumption Commitments and Risk Preferences
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CONSUMPTION COMMITMENTS AND RISK PREFERENCES Raj Chetty Adam Szeidl Working Paper 12467 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12467 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 August 2006 We thank Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, John Campbell, David Card, Gary Chamberlain, Martin Feldstein, Edward Glaeser, John Heaton, Caroline Hoxby, Lawrence Katz, Louis Kaplow, Matthew Rabin, Jonah Rockoff, Jesse Shapiro, two anonymous referees, and numerous seminar participants for helpful comments. James Sly provided outstanding research assistance. We are grateful for financial support from National Science Foundation grant SES 0522073. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. ©2006 by Raj Chetty and Adam Szeidl. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Consumption Commitments and Risk Preferences Raj Chetty and Adam Szeidl NBER Working Paper No. 12467 August 2006 JEL No. E2, H2, H5, J21, J64 ABSTRACT Many households devote a large fraction of their budgets to "consumption commitments" -- goods that involve transaction costs and are infrequently adjusted. This paper characterizes risk preferences in an expected utility model with commitments. We show that commitments affect risk preferences in two ways: (1) they amplify risk aversion with respect to moderate-stake shocks and (2) they create a motive to take large-payoff gambles. The model thus helps resolve two basic puzzles in expected utility theory: the discrepancy between moderate-stake and large-stake risk aversion and lottery playing by insurance buyers.
    [Show full text]
  • Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: a Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation
    Dartmouth College Dartmouth Digital Commons Dartmouth Scholarship Faculty Work 10-2010 Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation Xavier Giné The World Bank Dean Karlan Yale University Jonathan Zinman Dartmouth College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa Part of the Behavioral Economics Commons, Health Economics Commons, and the Public Health Commons Dartmouth Digital Commons Citation Giné, Xavier; Karlan, Dean; and Zinman, Jonathan, "Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation" (2010). Dartmouth Scholarship. 2379. https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa/2379 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Work at Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dartmouth Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 October 2010 : 213–235 http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi 10.1257/app.2.4.213( ) = Contents Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation† 213 Put Your Money Where Your Butt Is: I. CARES Product Design 217 II. Cue Cards Treatment Design 219 A Commitment Contract for Smoking Cessation† III. Experimental Design and Summary Statistics 219 IV. Results 223 A. CARES Take up 223 By Xavier Giné, Dean Karlan, and Jonathan Zinman* B. CARES Usage 223 C. Treatment Effects on Smoking Cessation 225 V. Conclusion 227 Appendix We designed and tested a voluntary commitment product to help Summaries of Three Open-Ended Follow-up Interviews 230 smokers quit smoking.
    [Show full text]
  • Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility* George Loewenstein Ted O'donoghue Matthew Rabin
    PROJECTION BIAS INPREDICTING FUTUREUTILITY* GEORGE LOEWENSTEIN TED O’DONOGHUE MATTHEW RABIN Peopleexaggerate the degree to which their future tastes will resemble their current tastes.We present evidence from a varietyof domains which demon- stratesthe prevalence of such projectionbias, developa formalmodel of it,and use thismodel to demonstrate its importance in economic environments. We show that,when people exhibit habit formation, projection bias leads people to consume toomuch early in life,and to decide, as time passes, to consume more— and save less—than originally planned. Projection bias can also lead to misguided pur- chasesof durable goods. We discuss a numberof additional applications and implications. Thegreat source of both the misery and disordersof human life,seems to arise from over-rating the difference between onepermanent situation and another.Avarice over-rates the differencebetween poverty and riches:ambition, that be- tweena private and apublic station:vain-glory, that between obscurityand extensivereputation— Adam Smith, The The- oryof Moral Sentiments [2002, p. 173; III,iii,31]. I. INTRODUCTION Optimal decision-makingoften requires a predictionof fu- turetastes, and futuretastes may differ fromcurrent tastes due tosuch factors as habit formation,day-to-day mood uctuations, socialin uences, maturation, and changesin theenvironment. *Forhelpful comments, we are grateful to Erik Eyster, ChristopherHarris, andmembers of theRussell Sage Foundation Behavioral Economics Roundtable; seminarparticipants at Cornell University, Yale University, Harvard University, Universityof Michigan,University of Texas,Syracuse University, London School ofEconomics, University of Zurich, the Toulouse Conference on Psychology and Economics,and the Jerome Levy Institute;and Lawrence Katz, Edward Glaeser, andan anonymousreferee. We especiallythank Colin Camerer and Drazen Prelec forvery helpfuldiscussions at theformative stages of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Mathematics in Economics and Its Effect on a Scholar's
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The use of mathematics in economics and its effect on a scholar’s academic career Espinosa, Miguel and Rondon, Carlos and Romero, Mauricio London School of Economics, International Monetary Fund, University of California San Diego September 2012 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41341/ MPRA Paper No. 41341, posted 15 Sep 2012 00:30 UTC The use of Mathematics in Economics and its Effect on a Scholar’s Academic Career∗ (Preliminary version. Comments are welcome.) Miguel Espinosa† Carlos Rondon,‡ and Mauricio Romero§ September 14, 2012 Abstract There has been so much debate on the increasing use of formal methods in Economics. Although there are some studies tackling these issues, those use either a little amount of papers, a small amount of scholars or a short period of time. We try to overcome these challenges constructing a database characterizing the main socio-demographic and academic output of a survey of 438 scholars divided into three groups: Economics Nobel Prize winners; scholars awarded with at least one of six worldwide prestigious economics recognitions; and academic faculty randomly selected from the top twenty economics departments. We give statistical evidence on the increasing trend of number of equations and econometric outputs per article, showing that for each of these variables there have been four structural breaks and three of them have been increasing ones. Therefore, we provide concrete measures of mathematization in Economics. Furthermore, we found that the use and training in mathematics has a positive correlation with the probability of winning a Nobel Prize in certain cases.
    [Show full text]