The Death of ‘Homo Economicus’
62,768
Published 2015-06-19
Human beings, notes Sam Bowles, a Research Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, are complex, psychological beings given to all sorts of motivations well beyond naked self-interest. That might be news to the economics profession, which posits a one-dimensional image of ‘homo economicus’, a rational, utility-maximizing agent, largely driven by the so-called “invisible hand” of the marketplace. Incorporating the disciplines of a multiplicity of social sciences, Bowles produces compelling evidence that self-interested financial incentives can in fact produce behavior that is inefficient and violates a society's morality.
In his work, Professor Bowles has conducted extensive field research, illustrating that humans can evolve as cooperative strategies when they participate in groups that share long-term similar norms and are willing to sanction those that do not follow group agreements. One example he cites regularly comes from behavioral experiments Bowles has conducted in which individuals have the opportunity to divide up substantial sums of money between themselves and others and also to pay for the opportunity to punish those who act selfishly. His research shows that people cooperate not only for selfish reasons but also because they are genuinely concerned about the well-being of others, as they try to uphold social norms, and value behaving ethically for its own sake. Moreover, people punish those who free-ride on the cooperative behavior of others for the same reasons.
This body of research has huge implications for the way we teach economics and, more broadly, construct policy. In our society, we rely on fines and rewards to harness people’s self-interest in the service of the common good, but do we get the balance right? To be sure, the threat of a ticket may well keep drivers in line, and the promise of a bonus likely inspires high performance. But that’s not the whole story: incentives can also backfire, diminishing the very behavior they’re meant to encourage
So what are the implications for the teaching of economics? How do we construct policies to bring out the good nature that is fundamentally intrinsic to mankind, rather than using traditional incentives which appeal solely to rational self-interest? Watch the interview as we discuss these important issues.
All Comments (21)
-
Well said Professor. I've been saying the same for decades. Amazing that this is news to folks.
-
When i read these comments, it's interesting that intelligent people listen to intelligent topics. These comments are intelligent and thought provoking.
-
Totally inspired by this guy, going to get his book.
-
Very good presentation professor
-
"you did a very generous thing... in which you didn't expect anything in return, you just did it!, because you felt like it" :) Very nice blow to the idea of "Rational Being" so prevalent in Economics! As a subject, if we were such a rational being, mathematics should have been natural to all of us ;)
-
This is excellent.
-
If we substitute our devotion to money, with altruism, we can live..... Devoting our respect to selfish desires seems to be killing us all.....
-
Rather than just modeling things like GDP and determining value solely on growth, we need more sophisticated ways of measuring human satisfaction and societal happiness and corporate value. Something like OECD efforts to measure the happiness of individual countries
-
Very beautiful!
-
Rationality is no more a priori assumption, it is utility maximisation.
-
Great video I learned a lot from this. However, to be mathematical or in anyway scientific the assumption of human decision and behavior has to be made. I wonder how our exact feelings and natural behaviors can be observed and be represented mathematically. This question will certainly take a lot of time and effort tobe answered.
-
Why do critics of mainstream economics conflate "utility maximization" with "purely self-interested behavior"? They are not the same thing. For example, Gary Becker discussed how Alturism could be understood in the context of utility maximization almost 40 years ago. I'm sure Bowles knows this, but the temptation to play maverick is too tempting.
-
During Thanksgiving, the topic of 'Homo Economics' always seems to dominate our dinner table.
-
It is true you can not motivate everyone by appealing to their self-interest. But those who are motivated by self-interest, and are successful are rewarded with power. What those few possess is a self-interested power to preserve thy self. Others gain other rewards, but only only power can bring the change the professor seeks. However through neoliberalism gaining power through anything other than self-interested/greedy motivation is impossible. Being smart is only valuable as the money you can make with it, not the minds you can enlighten.
-
Our current profit system is driven by debt. Use debt (loans, bonds etc) to create a business, buy land etc.- then pay back the loan with interest. Where does the interest come from? From banks using our currency to lend out to others. Where does the interest that loan repayments come. From other people, but why do prices and wages rise? Because maximizing profit even when it means creating debt by lobbying for Federal Reserve to print more currency is the norm for Wall Street and friends.
-
What of the moral implications of states assuming power to make people do whatever political whims declare is the "right thing"???
-
Professor bowles
-
Psychologists have demonstrated 1. Altruism in infants and many mammals 2. Distress over unfairness among infants and mammals. It might seem then seem that altruism and the engrained sense of the merits of fairness is a universal force that is innate in the animal kingdom and does not require a religious explanation
-
what if individuals were altruistic only when they have enough to spare? when it means survival aren't we all selfish? maybe this should be a factor in a hypothetical mathematical model that attempted to quantify it
-
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution written in 1902 by Peter Kropotkin Quite a bit of the work had already been done, you could've read the book and spared yourself some time and effort. I don't discount the necessity of research and studies on the way humans exist in current times, but there was a base of knowledge which could have provided a foundation to build on, or a launchpad perhaps, which apparently nobody was aware existed, or maybe they did but for whatever reasons discounted it offhand or thought it lacked validity.
