|
on Neuroeconomics |
|
Issue of 2010‒06‒26
two papers chosen by |
| By: | Sebastian J. Goerg (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn); Gari Walkowitz (Department of Management, University of Cologne) |
| Abstract: | In this experimental study, involving subjects from Abu-Dis (West Bank), Chengdu (China), Helsinki (Finland), and Jerusalem (Israel), we test for a presentation bias in a two-person cooperation game. In the positive frame of the game, a transfer creates a positive externality for the opposite player, and in the negative frame, a negative one. Subjects in Abu-Dis and Chengdu show a substantially higher cooperation level in the positive externality treatment. In Helsinki and Jerusalem, no framing effect is observed. These findings are also reflected in associated first-order beliefs. We argue that comparisons across subject-pools might lead to only partially meaningful and opposed conclusions if only one treatment condition is evaluated. We therefore suggest a complementary application and consideration of different presentations of identical decision problems within (cross-cultural) research on subject-pool differences. |
| Keywords: | framing of decision problems, methodology, subject-pool differences |
| JEL: | A13 C72 C91 F51 Z13 |
| Date: | 2010–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2010_28&r=neu |
| By: | Lant Pritchett (Harvard Kennedy School) |
| Abstract: | While everyone agrees that GDP per capita is an inadequate measure of a country’s overall “development” it is difficult to specify what, if anything, should take its place as a useful single summary number (or even just ranking). The Human Development Index is a prominent alternative which moves towards the notion of a more comprehensive measure of human wellbeing, but suffers many limitations in the limits of the domains it covers (only adding mortality and education) and in how those domains are assessed (only averages). I propose that a useful conceptual device is to imagine that individuals were ranking the countries they were to be born into, not knowing what position in that country they would occupy (e.g. male or female, rich or poor). The result could be a cardinal ranking of country of birth satisfaction units, how strongly someone would prefer to be born into country X versus country Y. While this thought experiment obviously does not of itself resolve any of the key issues, it can provide a framework for reasoning about how people would produce such a ranking: the domains of well being they would assess as important and how they would assess the distribution of well-being in those domains (e.g. would they care about the average, levels of absolute deprivation, inequalities). |
| Keywords: | Human Development, Poverty, Vulnerability |
| JEL: | O15 D63 F22 |
| Date: | 2010–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hdr:papers:hdrp-2010-03&r=neu |