IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlpol/v2009y2009i1id668p21-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jsou ekonomové jiní? Ekonomický model versus realita
[Are economists different? economic model]

Author

Listed:
  • Jitka Šeneklová
  • Jiří Špalek

Abstract

One of the key assumptions of neoclassical economics is the existence of the rational individual, who always tries to maximize his or her utility. The paper shows possibilities of experimental evaluation of this hypothesis with respect to the various groups of people who undertake the experiment. Our experiments try to (1) Evaluate real outcomes of model situations, and (2) Find differences between various groups of treated people with respect to our main research question - whether economists behave more selfishly than any other group of people. We employed game theory and its fundamental models - Prisoner's dilemma and Ultimate and Dictator Games. In accordance to previous foreign experiments, we conclude that in real situations people behave in a much less self-interested way than predicted by the economic model. In situations favouring free-riding, people voluntarily contributed to public goods. According to the results of our experiments, the hypothesis that economists are more likely to act for their own self interest cannot be rejected. In both experiments economists behaved in a self interested way, but these results were not prevailing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jitka Šeneklová & Jiří Špalek, 2009. "Jsou ekonomové jiní? Ekonomický model versus realita [Are economists different? economic model]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2009(1), pages 21-45.
  • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlpol:v:2009:y:2009:i:1:id:668:p:21-47
    DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.668.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.668.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.polek.668?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
    2. Mark Isaac, R. & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., 1985. "Public goods provision in an experimental environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 51-74, February.
    3. Anthony M. Yezer & Robert S. Goldfarb & Paul J. Poppen, 1996. "Does Studying Economics Discourage Cooperation? Watch What We Do, Not What We Say or How We Play," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 177-186, Winter.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 1997. "Classroom Games: Voluntary Provision of a Public Good," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 209-215, Fall.
    5. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, September.
    6. Tullberg, Jan, 1999. "The Ultimatum Game Revisited," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 1999:2, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 10 Jan 2002.
    7. Marwell, Gerald & Ames, Ruth E., 1981. "Economists free ride, does anyone else? : Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 295-310, June.
    8. John R. Carter & Michael D. Irons, 1991. "Are Economists Different, and If So, Why?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 171-177, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Beáta Mikušová Meričková & Jan Stejskal, 2014. "Hodnota statku kolektivní spotřeby [Value of Collective Consumption Goods]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2014(2), pages 216-231.
    2. Jiří Špalek & Zuzana Berná, 2011. "Threshold Effectiveness in Contributing to the Public Goods: Experiments Involving Czech Students," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(3), pages 250-267.

    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. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    2. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    3. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    4. Bauman, Yoram & Rose, Elaina, 2011. "Selection or indoctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 318-327, August.
    5. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2005. "Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 165-171, April.
    6. Ledyard, John O., "undated". "Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Working Papers 861, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    7. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Beatriz & Rin-Sánchez, Francisco Daniel & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2014. "Economists: cheaters with altruistic instincts," MPRA Paper 60678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    9. Ruske, René & Suttner, Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität," CIW Discussion Papers 03/2012, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    10. Ruske René & Suttner Johannes, 2012. "Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? – Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität / How (un-)fair are economists? New empirical evidence on market valuation and rationality," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 179-194, January.
    11. Astri Drange Hole, 2013. "How do economists differ from others in distributive situations?," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 38, pages 1-4.
    12. Müller, Andrea & Haucap, Justus, 2014. "Why are Economists so Different? Nature, Nurture and Gender Effects in a Simple Trust Game," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100554, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Sundemo, Mattias & Löfgren, Åsa, 2022. "Do business and economics studies erode prosocial values?," Working Papers in Economics 827, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2024.
    14. Miragaya-Casillas, Cristina & Aguayo-Estremera, Raimundo & Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto, 2023. "University students, economics education, and self-interest. A systematic literature review," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    15. Girts Racko, 2019. "Does Economic Rationalization Decrease or Increase Accounting Professionals’ Occupational Values?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 763-777, September.
    16. repec:noj:journl:v:38:y:2013:p:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Philipp Gerlach, 2017. "The games economists play: Why economics students behave more selfishly than other students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Kirchgassner, Gebhard, 2005. "(Why) are economists different?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 543-562, September.
    19. Stephen Meier & Bruno Frey, 2004. "Do Business Students Make Good Citizens?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 141-163.
    20. Katrin Hummel & Dieter Pfaff & Katja Rost, 2018. "Does Economics and Business Education Wash Away Moral Judgment Competence?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 559-577, June.
    21. João Carlos Graça & João Carlos Lopes & Rita Gomes Correia, 2014. "Economics education: literacy or mind framing? Evidence from a survey on the social building of trust in Portugal," Working Papers Department of Economics 2014/20, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    game theory; experimental economics; public goods; cooperation; prisoner?s dilemma;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • H00 - Public Economics - - General - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:prg:jnlpol:v:2009:y:2009:i:1:id:668:p:21-47. 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: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    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.