اقتصاد رفتاری چیست ؟

This paper is concerned with defining the characteristics of behavioral economics (BE), identifying the different strands of BE, and carefully comparing BE to mainstream economics (ME). The job of comparison is first to identify the key dimensions (related to its approach to science) along which BE, and its different strands, differs from ME, and second to use these dimensions to illustrate the differences. The dimensions selected for this use are: (1) narrowness, (2) rigidity, (3) intolerance, (4) mechanicalness, (5) separateness, and (6) individualism. After using these dimensions to characterize ME, they are used to characterize BE's strands.

Quite a few economists identify themselves as behavioral economists these days. Although they share common characteristics, they do behavioral economics (BE) in significantly different ways. Many of them would be hard pressed to articulate exactly what it is that makes them behavioral economists (BEs). And some might be very skeptical that there are any clear defining features of BE. So what is BE? This paper is concerned with defining the characteristics of BE, identifying the different strands of BE, and comparing BE to mainstream or orthodox economics. A key part of the paper involves identifying a number of dimensions useful for comparing the different strands of BE with other types of economics. An important question here is: is BE an economic school of thought? It is noteworthy that BE is not strongly associated with a political economic ideology or particular substantive propositions as is the case with some other economic schools of thought. What distinguishes BE is its scientific practices and its guiding notions of what good scientific practice ought to be. In other words, BEs practice and espouse scientific methods that are different, at least, from those typical of mainstream economics. To understand this, it is necessary first to gain some perspective by reviewing some important concepts from the philosophy of science, especially its application to economics (economic methodology).

Based on our careful comparison of BE's different strands to ME as well as examination of BE's overall characteristics, this paper finds that BE is a school of thought distinguished by the fact that it is much less narrow, rigid, intolerant, mechanical, separate, and individualistic than ME. Further, many behavioral economists are strongly motivated to develop the potential of BE so that it will one day end the dominance of ME (in its present form). It would be interesting, though beyond the scope of the present paper, to compare BE to other heterodox schools of thought. Also of considerable interest is the future direction of BE. Will the different strands of BE become better integrated with each other? If so, will it happen as one or several strands of BE become dominant or will it happen in a more pluralistic way? Will BE findings and perspectives become increasingly accepted, and thus, become part of the economic mainstream? With regard to the latter question, there is evidence of movement in this direction, but the comparisons of this paper suggest that there is still a very long way to go. Another possibility is that mainstream perspectives will become increasingly part of BE. However things evolve, my hunch is that BE will become a relatively more important part of economics. My hope is that in the process, the wisdom and insight of BE pioneers such as Herbert Simon, Vernon Smith, Harvey Leibenstein and others can be kept alive.