IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rei/ecoins/v6y2004i10p17-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

¿Los experimentos pueden falsear la teoría de la utilidad esperada?

Author

Listed:
  • Geoffrey M. Hodgson

    (University of Hertfordshire)

Abstract

Some recent articles debate the implications of the results of experimental economics. It is claimed by some that these results challenge the assumptions of expected utility theory. Others deny this. Both sides presume that the assumptions of rationality or expected utility-maximization are potentially falsifiable by empirical tests. This article contests this assumption. Building on previous work in economic methodology, it is argued that non-falsifiable assumptions, such as the standard rationality postulates, are potentially universal. Hence they can embrace any empirical phenomenon. That is both their strength and their weakness. The article concludes that the debate among experimental economists can only proceed if both sides accept the non-falsifiability of key propositions under dispute. That done, the protagonists can turn to the more pertinent questions such as the criteria for choosing theories. In particular, experimental economics may have a role in suggesting more narrow and context-specific behavioural assumptions for economic theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2004. "¿Los experimentos pueden falsear la teoría de la utilidad esperada?," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 6(10), pages 17-45, January-J.
  • Handle: RePEc:rei:ecoins:v:6:y:2004:i:10:p:17-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uexternado.edu.co/facecono/ecoinstitucional/workingpapers/ghodgson10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    2. Jason Potts, 2000. "The New Evolutionary Microeconomics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2258.
    3. Orchard, Lionel & Stretton, Hugh, 1997. "Public Choice," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 21(3), pages 409-430, May.
    4. Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions from Economics and Philosophy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 751-785, July.
    5. Timo Tammi, 1999. "Incentives and preference reversals: escape moves and community decisions in experimental economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 351-380.
    6. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    7. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Experiments in economics: should we trust the dismal scientists in white coats?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-30.
    8. Starmer, Chris, 1999. "Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 5-15, February.
    9. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    10. Siakantaris, Nikos, 2000. "Experimental Economics under the Microscope," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 24(3), pages 267-281, May.
    11. Gary J. Miller, 1997. "The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Political Science," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1173-1204, September.
    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. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    2. Irene van Staveren, 2012. "An Evolutionary Efficiency Alternative to the Notion of Pareto Efficiency," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-6, July.
    3. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-47, April.
    4. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00746617, HAL.
    5. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    6. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00746617 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Raphaël Giraud, 2005. "Anomalies de la théorie des préférences. Une interprétation et une proposition de formalisation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(4), pages 829-854.
    8. Saileshsingh Gunessee & Tom Lane, 2020. "Is Economics An Experimental Science? A Textbook Perspective," Discussion Papers 2020-16, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    9. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    11. Karola Bastini & Rainer Kasperzak, 2013. "Erkenntnisfortschritt in der Rechnungslegung durch experimentelle Forschung? — Diskussion methodischer Grundsatzfragen anhand der Entscheidungsnützlichkeit des Performance Reporting," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(7), pages 622-660, December.
    12. Ana C. Santos, 2011. "Experimental Economics," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Gunessee, Saileshsingh & Lane, Tom, 2023. "Changing perceptions about experimentation in economics: 50 years of evidence from principles textbooks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Richard Holt & J. Barkley Rosser & David Colander, 2011. "The Complexity Era in Economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 357-369.
    16. Morten Søberg, 2002. "The Duhem-Quine thesis and experimental economics. A reinterpretation," Discussion Papers 329, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    18. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    19. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Arthur Schram, 2005. "Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 225-237.
    21. Brendan Markey-Towler & John Foster, 2013. "Understanding the causes of income inequality in complex economic systems," Discussion Papers Series 478, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rationality; experimental economics; falsification; evolutionary psychology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General

    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:rei:ecoins:v:6:y:2004:i:10:p:17-45. 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: Paola Rodríguez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feextco.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.