| Abstract: |
Some economists believe that neuroeconomists threatens the theory of
economics. Glenn Harrison’s paper “Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration”
(2008) provides some support for this view, though some of the points he makes
are somewhat disguised. The field of neuroeconomics is barely into its teenage
years; and it is trying to do what? Criticize and redesign the field of
economics developed over hundreds of years? But that is not what
neuroeconomics is trying to do, in spite of all the efforts of some economists
trying to place it into that shoebox (see the argument in great detail in
Andrew Caplin, Andrew Schotter 2008). Neuroeconomics is a Mendelian-Economics
of sort; it is a science that is able to generate data by fixing the
environment to some degree, varying a single independent variable for its
affects, and is able to see each individual’s choices from initiation of the
decision-making process to its outcome. Mainstream (standard) economics, on
the other hand, looks at the average of the outcomes of many individuals and
proposes how people chose those outcomes, retroactively. The two fields,
neuroeconomics and standard economics, are evaluating two sides of the same
coin: one with and the other without ceteris paribus; they are not in conflict
with one another. |