IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fubsbe/284393.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A needs-based framework for approximating decisions and well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Krecik, Markus

Abstract

Behavioral economics has so far largely avoided discussing the psychological origins of preferences, as well as their relation to needs. This has not only restricted interdisciplinary exchange, but also significantly limits the predictive capabilities of models. For example, the revealed preference approach can only reliably predict repeating choices, while needing large amounts of observations for calibration. In this paper, I show how unifying preferences with the psychological concept of needs strengthens economic models, by developing a decision-making framework for well-being assessment and choice prediction. To present the direct merit of this approach, I show how this framework yields a systematic approximation scheme, which is able to solve limitations of current approaches by describing new alternatives, non-repeating choices, or otherwise unobservable desires. Meanwhile, the approximation scheme requires less observations on an individual level than current approaches. I achieve this by constructing a hierarchical dependency between human motivations and preferences through the language of needs. I show the basic feasibility of the approximation scheme through simulations on random populations. In practice, the framework is applicable in situations where individuals exert choices only once and measuring preferences is expensive, like evaluating policy proposals or predicting decisions under technological change.

Suggested Citation

  • Krecik, Markus, 2024. "A needs-based framework for approximating decisions and well-being," Discussion Papers 2024/2, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fubsbe:284393
    DOI: 10.17169/refubium-42249
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/284393/1/1882329376.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17169/refubium-42249?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    2. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    3. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Where do preferences come from?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 613-637, August.
    4. Matthias Benz, 2005. "The Relevance of Procedural Utility for Economics," IEW - Working Papers 256, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Pareto, Vilfredo, 2014. "Manual of Political Economy: A Critical and Variorum Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199607952 edited by Montesano, Aldo & Zanni, Alberto & Bruni, Luigino & Chipman, John S. & McLure, Michael.
    6. Laura Blow & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2008. "Revealed Preference Analysis of Characteristics Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(2), pages 371-389.
    7. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    8. Ian Gough, 2015. "Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 39(5), pages 1191-1214.
    9. Scitovsky, Tibor, 1992. "The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human Satisfaction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195073478.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    11. B. Douglas Bernheim & Daniel Bjorkegren & Jeffrey Naecker & Antonio Rangel, 2013. "Non-Choice Evaluations Predict Behavioral Responses to Changes in Economic Conditions," NBER Working Papers 19269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Andreas Chai & Alessio Moneta, 2013. "Back to Engel? Some Evidence for the Hierarchy of Needs," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Esben Sloth Andersen (ed.), Long Term Economic Development, edition 127, pages 33-59, Springer.
    13. Luigino Bruni & Pier Luigi Porta (ed.), 2007. "Handbook on the Economics of Happiness," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3437.
    14. Ulrich Witt, 2001. "special issue: Learning to consume - A theory of wants and the growth of demand," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 23-36.
    15. Christian Schubert, 2006. "A Note on the Principle of "Normative Individualism"," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2005-17, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    16. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Kate Soper, 2006. "Conceptualizing needs in the context of consumer politics," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 355-372, December.
    18. Ulrich Witt & Christian Schubert, 2010. "Extending the Informational Basis of Welfare Economics: The Case of Preference Dynamics," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2010-05, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    19. Narasimha D. Rao & Paul Baer, 2012. "“Decent Living” Emissions: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-26, April.
    20. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    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. Leonhard K. Lades, 2012. "The impact of differential satiation dynamics on changing consumer behavior, wellbeing, and innovative activity," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2012-16, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    2. Christian Schubert, 2013. "Is Novelty Always a Good Thing? Towards an Evolutionary Welfare Economics," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 209-242, Springer.
    3. Leonhard Lades, 2013. "Explaining shapes of Engel curves: the impact of differential satiation dynamics on consumer behavior," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1023-1045, November.
    4. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2020. "Revealed Deliberate Preference Changes," MPRA Paper 101756, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Brand-Correa, Lina I. & Steinberger, Julia K., 2017. "A Framework for Decoupling Human Need Satisfaction From Energy Use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 43-52.
    6. Boissonnet, Niels & Ghersengorin, Alexis & Gleyze, Simon, 2023. "Revealed deliberate preference change," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 357-367.
    7. Richard Nelson & Davide Consoli, 2010. "An evolutionary theory of household consumption behavior," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 665-687, October.
    8. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    9. Brendan Markey-Towler, 2018. "A formal psychological theory for evolutionary economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 691-725, September.
    10. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Reason-Based Choice And Context-Dependence: An Explanatory Framework," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 175-229, July.
    11. Pier-Paolo Saviotti & Andreas Pyka, 2017. "Innovation, structural change and demand evolution: does demand saturate?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 337-358, April.
    12. Mandler, Michael & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2012. "A million answers to twenty questions: Choosing by checklist," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 71-92.
    13. Zarri, Luca, 2010. "Behavioral economics has two 'souls': Do they both depart from economic rationality?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 562-567, October.
    14. Geoffroy de Clippel, 2014. "Behavioral Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 2975-3002, October.
    15. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01249514 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Degan, Arianna & Merlo, Antonio, 2009. "Do voters vote ideologically?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1868-1894, September.
    17. Safarzyńska, Karolina, 2013. "Evolutionary-economic policies for sustainable consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 187-195.
    18. Benjamin Volland, 2013. "On the intergenerational transmission of preferences," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 217-249, October.
    19. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2007. "Do Voters Vote Ideologically?, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-034, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Aug 2008.
    20. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    21. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Preferences; Basic Needs; Decision-Making; Behavioral Economics; Welfare Economics;
    All these keywords.

    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:zbw:fubsbe:284393. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwfubde.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.