Tag Archives: behavioral economics

environmental economics, behavioral economics, and [E]cological [E]conomics

The journal Ecological Economics has as long article on the history of…ecological economics, which it invented. I started through the article a bit skeptical, and became absorbed. They are now trying to figure out how behavioral economics fits in. There is a ton of interesting stuff here, and I am not sure I can even begin to summarize it.

The basic tenet in Ecological Economics (EE) is eloquently stated in the seminal paper by (Røpke, 2004, p. 296): “the human economy is embedded in nature, and economic processes are also always natural processes”. The field gained formal recognition with the founding of the International Society for Ecological Economics in 1988, followed by the launch of the journal Ecological Economics in 1989 and the first international conference in 1990 (Røpke, 2004). It emerged after several unsuccessful attempts to make environmental economics more grounded in physical reality and less constrained by its rigid methodological assumptions. In response to this rigidity, the scholars who founded the EE society and journal opted for openness: any opinion or method could in principle be considered, debated and possibly dismissed only ex post. This stance reflects EE’s commitment to methodological pluralism (Norgaard, 1989), rooted in the belief that no single approach can adequately capture the full complexity of socio-ecological challenges.

That’s the beginning. It goes on like that for a long time. Note that “environmental economics”, which essentially extends the logic of traditional economics to properly deal with external costs and benefits, is not good enough according to the founders of ecological economics. Essentially, we need to acknowledge that the human economy is embedded in the natural world, not the other way around. Behavioral economics extends traditional economics to account for how real individuals (humans, firms) reach conclusions and make decisions, which falls short of pure rationality. The ecological economics crowd says this focus on individual decisions was the breakthrough that allowed behavioral economics to break through into the field of traditional economics. But this is also not good enough because our decisions and actions as a society are more than just the sum of decisions and actions by all the individual actors. That’s my take-home summary, but the article puts it much better backed by evidence and academic studies. Worth a read.

cognitive bias

This open access article has a nice summary of cognitive bias research.

Black swans, cognition, and the power of learning from failure

Failure carries undeniable stigma and is difficult to confront for individuals, teams, and organizations. Disciplines such as commercial and military aviation, medicine, and business have long histories of grappling with it, beginning with the recognition that failure is inevitable in every human endeavor. Although conservation may arguably be more complex, conservation professionals can draw on the research and experience of these other disciplines to institutionalize activities and attitudes that foster learning from failure, whether they are minor setbacks or major disasters. Understanding the role of individual cognitive biases, team psychological safety, and organizational willingness to support critical self‐examination all contribute to creating a cultural shift in conservation to one that is open to the learning opportunity that failure provides. This new approach to managing failure is a necessary next step in the evolution of conservation effectiveness.

Richard Thaler

Richard Thaler has been awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on behavioral psychology.

Limited rationality: Thaler developed the theory of mental accounting,explaining how people simplify financial decision-making by creating separate accounts in their minds, focusing on the narrow impact of each individual decision rather than its overall effect. He also showed how aversion to losses can explain why people value the same item more highly when they own it than when they don’t, a phenomenon called the endowment effect. Thaler was one of the founders of the field of behavioural finance, which studies how cognitive limitations influence financial markets.

Social preferences: Thaler’s theoretical and experimental research on fairness has been influential. He showed how consumers’ fairness concerns may stop firms from raising prices in periods of high demand, but not in times of rising costs. Thaler and his colleagues devised the dictator game, an experimental tool that has been used in numerous studies to measure attitudes to fairness in different groups of people around the world.

Lack of self-control: Thaler has also shed new light on the old observation that New Year’s resolutions can be hard to keep. He showed how to analyse self-control problems using a planner-doer model, which is similar to the frameworks psychologists and neuroscientists now use to describe the internal tension between long-term planning and short-term doing. Succumbing to shortterm temptation is an important reason why our plans to save for old age, or make healthier lifestyle choices, often fail. In his applied work, Thaler demonstrated how nudging – a term he coined – may help people exercise better self-control when saving for a pension, as well in other contexts.

Richard Thaler

Here’s a Vanguard interview with Richard Thaler on what behavioral economics is all about.

Losses have about twice the emotional impact of an equivalent gain. Fear of losses (and a tendency toward short-term thinking—I’m sneaking in a third one here) can inhibit appropriate risk-taking.

For example, investing in the stock market has historically provided much higher returns than investing in bonds or savings accounts, but stock prices fluctuate more, producing a greater risk of losses. Loss aversion can prevent investors from taking advantage of the long-term opportunities in stocks.

The second bias that causes a lot of trouble is overconfidence. Most people think they are above-average investors, and as a result they trade too much and diversify too little. Overconfidence can also lead people to invest during what appears to be a bubble, thinking they will just get out faster than others. Research shows that the more individuals trade, the lower their returns. Not surprisingly, men suffer from this problem more than women.