Talk:Behavioral economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Behavioral economics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 18, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
May 10, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

'Failed' FAC[edit]

Well, this failed the FAC because no one really seemed to comment on it. I'll re-nominate it when I have addressed to some extent the only somewhat valid criticism - many of the sub-pages are incomplete. From the FAC page:

Partial self-nom - I added to pgreenfinch's original behavioural finance page. I think it's a good and well referenced article on a fairly interesting subset of finance/economics. But I might be biased :) Psychobabble

  • Support - yeh its interesting AlbinoMonkey 12:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Wiki needs definetly much more work on economic subjects and I am happy to see activity in this field, but this article is far from ready from featured status. Did you notice there are two 'Criticisms' sections?? I fixed various minor problems, but this needs more interlinks and expansion, especially where there are lists like 'Behavioral economics topics' or 'Key Figures'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The outline of the article is split between behavioral finance and behavioral economics, the two criticism sections are specific to each of those sub-sections. I realise more needs to be done in the sub-topics, I wasn't sure if that was a criterion for having the main page (which is a broad outline of the field) featured. A lot of that stuff I'll fill in when I finish exams. Psychobabble
  • Comment on the picture: The only picture is a picture of Daniel Kahneman. The picture had no source/license information, but I've added a probable source and assumed the picture is fair use. Because of that I don't think we should use the picture in the article -- unless I'm mistaken about the license -- because I don't think we should use it as fair use outside Daniel Kahneman. ✏ Sverdrup 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know much about this sort of stuff. I assumed if it was OK for the Kahnenman wikipedia articke, it was OK for this one.Psychobabble

I've gone and made a seperate page for Behavioural economics - I'm an Aussie so I spell the word with a U and didn't realise a redirect had been set up from behavoral economics to here. If people who know about this stuff can go look at the page I made and give some opinions as to whether we should merge the info on these two pages that'd be greatly appreciated. Finance and economics are obviously different fields, but the two movements are fairly closely related so it might be worth merging. I'd just like a 2nd opinion before doing so :)


EoT: it seemed to me that the "See also law and economics" didnt belong on the graph with criticisms. Feel free to try it someplace else.

BF/BE is one of my pet fields, as you might see in my user's page. Imo, you made a very good job in your behavioural economics page. What is true is that BE and BF are studying more or less the same cognitive and emotional, individual and collective phenomena. But the anomalies that those biases create are a bit different if they take place in financial assets or in goods and services.

Thus the two texts would enrich each other, I think, if merged, with a common section about the human biases at play, and separate sections about the applications in finance and in economics. Btw, I think those biases and anomalies are found not only in markets, but also in public choice.

I suggest that the first of us who find the time to make this combination just do it, or at least start it, but I see no hurry as I think it would need a careful job to make something consistent and comprehensive for the readers.

Btw, not being an English speaker, I have no preference about how to spell behavio(u)ral), even if I use the American spelling that I found more common in the web. Funny thing from a froggy, isn'it ? ;-)--Pgreenfinch 15:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok, i've got some down time at work, I'm going to make a start on a merger. Thanks for your input. Psychobabble
    • Done. I copied the history section from the other page almost wholesale, expanded the methodology section and created seperate topics/criticisms sections for finance and economics. I added some stuff in the finance section on the equity premium puzzle cause I've looked at it a bit. I'd appreciate feedback :) Psychobabble


Editing "behavioral economics":

2nd paragraph of the "History" section - original sentence: "...reference should be made to the theory of Bounded Rationality by Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon who explained how people irrationally tend to be satisfied, instead of maximizing utility, as generally assumed."

the phrase "tend to be satisfied" is incorrect; it should be "tend to satisfice". The word "satisfice" was specifically coined by Herbert Simon to describe a type of quasi-optimizing behavior, in contrast to "utility maximizing". This is, it is a new technical term, not an ordinary English word.

Dr. Georgantzis's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Georgantzis has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Instead of "non-human animals" and "Non-human animal..." I would suggest just and "non humans".

Regarding the content of the criticism section, I would add the following criticism: "While behavioural economics has brought about a revolution recognizing and organizing the flaws of the traditional neoclassical approach leading to better theory and accommodating previously unexplained phenomena, it has remained largely confined within the limits of a positive approach to human behaviour. Recently, "nudging" has meant a timid step towards a moderately normative approach, which implicitly recognizes the need for some moderate paternalistic intervention in order to improve human decisions aimed at achieving objectively better individual and social outcomes. The ongoing environmental and inequality world-wide crises call for a courageous switching from positive arguments like "some people are inequity averse" or "some people are more environmentally aware than others" to normative ones like "we need to educate a more inequity-averse citizen" or "the world is better off when citizens behave in a more environmentally-aware way".

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Georgantzis has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Aurora Garcia-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Melanie Parravano, 2010. "The lottery-panel task for bi-dimensional parameter-free elicitation of risk attitudes," ThE Papers 10/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Novarese's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Novarese has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Behavioral economics is today a wide and not so homogeneous area of research. Such different interpretations do not emerge in this article. It is true that the label is often just used to indicate non mainstream and psychologically founded economics, but there are sometimes strong differences between the scholars in the field. Sent (2004) found a difference between an old (whose main scholar would be Herbert Simon) and a new behavioural economics (founded mainly by Kahneman and Tversky); some others pose a difference between cognitive and behavioural economics (see my paper Evolutionary psychology is not an applied issue of behavioural economics, and a scholar like Gerd Gigerenzer would not define himself as a behavioural economist. The same label “bounded rationality” is read in different ways. While today BE is mainly seen an alternative to neoclassical economics, at its beginning there was, yet, strong connection, and psychological insights were used in maximization models.

Maybe it is just a typing error, but I do not understand why at the beginning of the page we found the “three prevalent themes in behavioural finance”. Besides I’m not sure that these lists is completely correct. The word "heuristics" has different meaning (for someone they are mainly erros, but not for others, like Gigerenzer). The framing effect may influence decisions because of the heuristics used for deciding (and so it is not a different theme). The effect of heuristics and biases on the market functioning is probably still to be fully developed (as suggested later in this same page).

I do not understand the difference between areas of research and applied issues.

In the list of scholars there are both Nobel Prizes and much less know persons.

The main missing idea is that of "nudge": public policy funded on behavioural insights (Thaler is today more known because of nudge than because of behavioural finance).

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Novarese has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Novarese, Marco & Lanteri, Alessandro, 2007. "Individual learning: theory formation, and feedback in a complex task," MPRA Paper 3049, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Innocenti's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Innocenti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Excellent article

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Innocenti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Alessandro Innocenti & Alessandra Rufa & Jacopo Semmoloni, 2008. "Cognitive Biases and Gaze Direction: An Experimental Study," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 022, University of Siena.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Bogetic's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Bogetic has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Very good review of the field, overall.

I suggest the author to consider including the following relevant reference of the World Bank's flagship World Development Report on Mind, Society and Behavior, 2015 (World Bank 2015).

Another recent relevant reference providing new experimental evidence in the context of analysis of economic development: Brjonskov, Bogetic, Hillman and Popovic (2015). Trust and Identity in a Small, Post-Crisis, Post-Socialist Society, World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 6828, April 2014.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Bogetic has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Bogetic, Zeljko & Bussolo, Maurizio & Medvedev, Denis, 2008. "Achieving accelerated and shared growth in Ghana : a MAMS-based analysis of costs and opportunities," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4523, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Additions to this Wiki[edit]

Hello all! I am a student editor who has recently been reading into economics and writing a paper pertaining to how economics, culture, and the political economy all intertwine. I believe that behavioral economics plays a big role in how these three things interact with each other and wanted to add my two cents on what I think could be added to this page. Since this is a completed article, I am going to add in pieces where I believe that information is missing:

  • How culture influences economic behavior/decisions
  • How the political economy of one's country of residence plays into their individual behavioral economic choices
  • Nature vs. nurture arguments and how they apply to this field

I have already uncovered some sources with which I was going to do my initial research to incorporate these themes into this Wikipedia page. Before I do this, I wanted to post on the Talk page so that you could all see the sources I was looking at and ask if there are any other sources out there that you are aware of that may be good to review too. In addition, please feel free to comment or ask any questions you may have! Any suggestions are welcome.

Sources to review for these claims:

  • Weber, Roberto, and Robyn Dawes. “Behavioral Economics.” The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Second Edition, Edited by Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg, STU - Student edition, Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 90–108,
  • GALSTON, WILLIAM A. “Economics and Culture in Market Democracies.” The New Challenge to Market Democracies: The Political and Social Costs of Economic Stagnation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2014, pp. 14–18,
  • Saint-Paul, Gilles. “The Policy Prescriptions of Behavioral Economics.” The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism, Princeton University Press, 2011, pp. 77–96,
  • Amir, On, and Orly Lobel. “Stumble, Predict, Nudge: How Behavioral Economics Informs Law and Policy.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 108, no. 8, 2008, pp. 2098–2137.

Schmids (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I did some more research regarding what I wanted to post and believe that it fits better under the Cultural economics Wiki page and intend to move my work over there. Schmids (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Applied issues" section[edit]

The section "Applied issues" on this article, the title of which is "Behavioral economics", has a subsection titled "Behavioral Economics", and includes the following bizarre text: Technical analysts consider behavioral Economics to be behavioral economics' "academic cousin" and the theoretical basis for technical analysis.

What is the intention here? Is this the result of a mangled merge? Was the editor somehow trying to make a distinction between title-case and lower-cases? I don't have the expertise to correct this error, but clearly something is amiss. (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice that this bizarre situation arises from this edit which is just a find-and-replace 'finance' with 'Economics'. I will revert it. (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)