ABSTRACT
This paper studies the controversy on Fehr and Schmidt's model of inequity aversion. It borrows insights from disciplines such as philosophy and the sociology of science that have specialized in studying scientific controversies. Our goal is to contribute to the historical and methodological literature on behavioral economics, which happens to have neglected behavioral economists' research on social preferences. Our analysis of the controversy reveals some new insights about the relation of behavioral economics with other sub-fields in economics, as well as with other disciplines.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Indeed, this subfield is not the focus of the contributions of Sent (Citation2004), Heukelom (Citation2014), Grüne-Yanoff (Citation2016), Angner (Citation2019), Heidl (Citation2016), Hands (Citation2010), Geiger (Citation2017), Braesemann (Citation2019), Davis (Citation2010) and Jullien and Vallois (Citation2014), among others.
2 This is a general impression that we have, which we quickly checked by searching for the keyword ‘controversy’ in the Journal of Economic Methodology, taking the first ten papers that were found and then proceeding to a quick reading of the papers and a much more attentive reading of the bibliographies. None of these papers used any work from other sub-disciplines that specialize in the study of scientific controversies. To the best of our knowledge, the only methodological paper referencing (very swiftly) one such reference is Mongin (Citation2006). There are no doubt others like this one, but our point is that we aim to build a much larger and more systematic bridge with this literature.
3 It should be noted that, contrary to what the sociological on scientific controversy might lead one to believe, philosophers of science have recently offered a rich set of approaches that go beyond the rationalist vs. relativist dichotomy (see e.g. Chang, Citation2014, Citation2017; Douglas, Citation2000; Longino, Citation2013). Małecka (Citation2021) has recently promoted the use of such approaches for economic methodologists.
4 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, January 27, 2020 (see Appendix A.1).
5 Klaus Schmidt, e-mail to author, January 24, 2020.
7 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, January 27, 2020.
8 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, January 27, 2020.
9 Binmore and Shaked (Citation2010a) mention the 2390 citations for Fehr and Schmidt (Citation1999) as a measurement of its impact, which reached more than 10,000 citations in 2018 according to Google scholar.
10 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, June 11, 2021.
11 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, June 11, 2021
12 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, January 27, 2020.
13 Barkley Rosser, e-mail to author, January 28, 2020.
14 Avner Shaked, e-mail to author, January 27, 2020.
15 Barkley Rosser, e-mail to author, January 28, 2020.
16 The e-mails referenced in the previous footnotes all showed that this impression still held ten years after the JEBO exchange for Shaked, Binmore, Fehr and Schmidt.
17 It should be noted that we do not equate the citation patterns presented here as an indication of the quality of the content of the cited papers, but only as an indication of the reactions of the community.
18 The dictator game is an ultimatum game in which the receiver has no choice but to accept the offer of the proposer.
19 The set of open and virulent controversies about behavioral economics after the mid-2000 is broader than the one we have presented here and includes notable C. F. Camerer (Citation2008) versus Gul and Pesendorfer (Citation2008).
20 See also (Croson, Citation2006) for a similar point of view.
21 Similar arguments about the as-if approach in behavioral economics can be found in Berg and Gigerenzer (Citation2010) and Moscati (Citation2021).
22 This tension is exacerbated by at least two other historical and methodological factors. Firstly, BE is part of the more general shift of the economics profession towards more empirical and applied work (Angrist et al., Citation2020; Backhouse & Cherrier, Citation2017a; Hamermesh, Citation2013). Secondly, there is an unacknowledged heterogeneity of interpretations of rational choice theory and game theory from both proponents and opponents of behavioral economics engaged in controversies (Guala, Citation2006; Herfeld, Citation2020).
Sent, E.-M. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36(4), 735–760. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-36-4-735 Heukelom, F. (2014). Behavioral economics: A history. Cambridge University Press. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z Angner, E. (2019). We're all behavioral economists now. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26(3), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1625210 Heidl, S. (2016). Philosophical problems of behavioural economics, Routledge INEM advances in economic methodology, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Hands, D. W. (2010). Economics, psychology and the history of consumer choice theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(4), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bep045 Geiger, N. (2017). The rise of behavioral economics: A quantitative assessment. Social Science History, 41(03), 555–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2017.17 Braesemann, F. (2019). How behavioural economics relates to psychology – some bibliographic evidence. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1511257 Davis, J. B. (2010). Individuals and identity in economics. Cambridge University Press. Jullien, D., & Vallois, N. (2014). A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2014.939689 Mongin, P. (2006). A concept of progress for normative economics. Economics and Philosophy, 22(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267105000696 Chang, H. (2014). Is water H
O? Evidence, realism and pluralism, Number 293 in Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Springer. Chang, H. (2017). Is pluralism compatible with scientific realism? In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of scientific realism (pp. 176–186). Routledge. Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/392855Publisher: [The University of Chicago Press, Philosophy of Science Association]. Longino, H. E. (2013). Studying human behavior: How scientists investigate aggression and sexuality. The University of Chicago press. Małecka, M. (2021). Values in economics: A recent revival with a twist. Journal of Economic Methodology, 28(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868776 Binmore, K., & Shaked, A. (2010a). Experimental economics: Where next? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.10.019 Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 Camerer, C. F. (2008). The case for mindful economics. In A. Caplin & A. Schotter (Eds.), The foundations of positive and normative economics: A handbook (pp. 43–69). Oxford University Press. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2008). The case for mindless economics. In A. Caplin & A. Schotter (Eds.), The foundations of positive and normative economics: A handbook (pp. 3–42). Oxford University Press. Croson, R. (2006). Contrasting methods and comparative findings in psychology and economics. In D. De Cremer, M. Zeelenberg & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and economics (pp. 301–317). Psychology Press. OCLC: 841171684. Moscati, I. (2021). Process models are as-if models: An antirealist account of economic theories of decision-making [Working Paper]. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3724961. Angrist, J., Azoulay, P., Ellison, G., Hill, R., & Lu, S. F. (2020). Inside job or deep impact? extramural citations and the influence of economic scholarship. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(1), 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20181508 Backhouse, R. E., & Cherrier, B. (2017a). The age of the applied economist. History of Political Economy, 49(Supplement), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4166239 Hamermesh, D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.162 Guala, F. (2006). Has game theory been refuted? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2006103532 Herfeld, C. (2020). The diversity of rational choice theory: A review note. Topoi, 39(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9588-7 Additional information
Funding
This work was supported by the French government, managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche under the project Investissements d'Avenir UCAJEDI with the reference n° ANR-15-IDEX-01.
Notes on contributors
Alexandre Truc
Alexandre Truc is a postdoctoral researcher at Université Côte d'Azur.
Dorian Jullien
Dorian Jullien is an assistant professor at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})