nep-evo New Economics Papers
on Evolutionary Economics
Issue of 2019‒12‒09
four papers chosen by
Matthew Baker
City University of New York

  1. Estimating Social Preferences and Kantian Morality in Strategic Interactions By Alger, Ingela; Weibull, Jörgen W.; Van Leeuwen, Boris
  2. Incorporating Conditional Morality into Economic Decisions By Masclet, David; Dickinson, David L.
  3. Uncovering the Heterogeneity behind Cross-Cultural Variation in Antisocial Punishment By Adrian Bruhin; Kelly Janizzi; Christian Thöni
  4. How Behavioural Economics Relates to Psychology - Some Bibliographic Evidence By Braesemann, Fabian

  1. By: Alger, Ingela; Weibull, Jörgen W.; Van Leeuwen, Boris
    Abstract: Recent theoretical work suggests that a form of Kantian morality has evolutionary foundations. To investigate the relative importance of Kantian morality and social preferences, we run laboratory experiments on strategic interaction in social dilemmas. Using a structural model, we estimate social preferences and morality concerns both at the individual level and the aggregate level. We observe considerable heterogeneity in social preferences and Kantian morality. A finite mixture analysis shows that the subject pool is well described as consisting of two types. One exhibits a combination of inequity aversion and Kantian morality, while the other combines spite and Kantian morality.
    JEL: C49 C72 C9 C91 D03 D84
    Date: 2019–11
  2. By: Masclet, David (University of Rennes); Dickinson, David L. (Appalachian State University)
    Abstract: We present a framework that incorporates both moral motivations and fairness considerations into utility. The main idea is that individuals face a preference trade-off between their material individual interest and their desire to follow moral norms. In our model, we assume that moral motivation is conditional and may be influenced by others' actions. Specifically, in our framework moral obligation is a combination of two main components: an autonomous component and a social influence component that captures the influence of others. Our framework is able to explain many stylized results in the literature and to improve theories of economic behavior.
    Keywords: fairness, ethical decision making, moral motivation, behavioral economics
    JEL: B3 D6 D9
    Date: 2019–11
  3. By: Adrian Bruhin; Kelly Janizzi; Christian Thöni
    Abstract: Antisocial punishment in public good games, i.e., punishment of individuals who contributed the same or more than their punisher, varies substantially across cultures. We exploit the data of Herrmann et al. (2008) and estimate a finite mixture model to uncover the heterogeneity behind this variation in a parsimonious way. The finite mixture model reveals that, overall, the population consists of two cleanly segregated punisher types: 35.3% Type AF subjects who engage in antisocial punishment as wellas free rider punishment and 64.7% Type F subjects who engage exclusively in free rider punishment. Moreover, we find that in cultures with high levels of antisocial punishment, Type AF subjects are more frequent. Despite its parsimony, this classification of subjects into types predicts mean earnings per group and enhances our understanding of the large variation in the effectiveness of peer punishment across cultures.
    Keywords: Antisocial Punishment, Public Good Games, Finite Mixture Models, Heterogeneity,Cultural Variation
    JEL: C92 C72 H41
    Date: 2019–11
  4. By: Braesemann, Fabian
    Abstract: Whether behavioural economics has a fundamental influence on economics is debated by behavioural and heterodox economists as well as by methodologists and historians of economics. At the core of this debate is the question whether behavioural economics is shaped by large-scale content imports from psychology, or whether these transfers have been too selective to challenge dominant approaches in economics. This study contributes to the debate in analysing a variety of bibliographic data from the disciplinary boundary between economics and psychology. Two datasets from the boundary of behavioural economics and psychology are compared to sets of economic and psychology publications in quantifying the use of mathematics, the share of empirical contributions, the authors’ academic background, and their cross-citations via network analysis. In contrast to proposals made by some methodologists and behavioural economists, the statistical results confirm content transfers from psychology via behavioural economics only to a limited extend. The observed level of interaction provides evidence for a selective import of specific psychological findings by a small number of established investigators in behavioural economics. These findings were then intensively debated as divergences from rationality within the growing, but econ-centered community of behavioural economists.
    Date: 2018–08–22

This nep-evo issue is ©2019 by Matthew Baker. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.