IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/30016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decision Making under Ecological Regime Shift: An Experimental Economic Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kawata, Yukichika

Abstract

Environmental economics postulates the assumption of homo economicus and presumes that externality occurs as a result of the rational economic activities of economic agents. This paper examines this assumption using an experimental economic approach in the context of regime shift, which has been receiving increasing attention. We observe that when externality does not exist, economic agents (subjects of experimemt) act economically rationally, but when externality exists, economic agents avoid the risk of a regime shift that would have negative consequences for others. Our results suggest that environmental economics may have to reconsider the assumption of homo economicus.

Suggested Citation

  • Kawata, Yukichika, 2011. "Decision Making under Ecological Regime Shift: An Experimental Economic Approach," MPRA Paper 30016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:30016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30016/1/MPRA_paper_30016.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marten Scheffer & Steve Carpenter & Jonathan A. Foley & Carl Folke & Brian Walker, 2001. "Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6856), pages 591-596, October.
    2. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Bastien, Carlos & Cardoso, Jose Luis, 2007. "From homo economicus to homo corporativus: A neglected critique of neoclassical economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 118-127, February.
    5. Becker, Christian, 2006. "The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 17-23, November.
    6. Robert H. Frank & Thomas D. Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1996. "Do Economists Make Bad Citizens?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 187-192, Winter.
    7. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    8. 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.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2005. "Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 165-171, April.
    4. Mohsen Javdani & Ha-Joon Chang, 2023. "Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 47(2), pages 309-339.
    5. Javdani, Moshen & Chang, Ha-Joon, 2019. "Who Said or What Said? Estimating Ideological Bias in Views Among Economists," MPRA Paper 91958, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Kaiser, Tim & Oberrauch, Luis, 2021. "Economic education at the expense of indoctrination? Evidence from Germany," EconStor Preprints 245801, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Eriksson, Ralf, 2005. "On the ethics of environmental economics as seen from textbooks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 421-435, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. repec:noj:journl:v:38:y:2013:p:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Lange, Andreas & Vogt, Carsten & Ziegler, Andreas, 2007. "On the importance of equity in international climate policy: An empirical analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 545-562, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Brinja Meiseberg & Thomas Ehrmann & Aloys Prinz, 2017. "“Anything worth winning is worth cheating for”? Determinants of cheating behavior among business and theology students," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 985-1016, November.
    18. André Hoorn, 2015. "The Global Financial Crisis and the Values of Professionals in Finance: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 253-269, August.
    19. Kirchgassner, Gebhard, 2005. "(Why) are economists different?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 543-562, September.
    20. René Ruske, 2015. "Does Economics Make Politicians Corrupt? Empirical Evidence from the United States Congress," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 240-254, May.
    21. Astri Drange Hole, 2008. "How do economists differ from others in distributive situations?," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 023, University of Siena.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    homo economicus; unboundedly rational economic agents; regime shift; experimental economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:30016. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.