Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:57:52.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WELL-BEING AND NEUROECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Julian C. Jamison
Julian C. Jamison*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neuroscience can contribute to economics by inspiring new models, helping to distinguish models that have similar implications for readily available data, and guiding interpretations of decision-making processes by policy-makers. However, there is an additional less straightforward role for it to play: augmenting, along with survey data and other non-revealed-preference sources, assessments of well-being. The need for such augmentation lies in the slightly bizarre stance taken by modern economic theory, namely that economics is concerned only with choices and not with welfare per se. It is shown that this is neither historical nor at all necessary, even within the standard paradigm. Although neuroscience is by no means a panacea for determining true utility, which ultimately remains a subjective concept, it provides a uniquely useful complementary dataset.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Neuroeconomics , November 2008 , pp. 407 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. and Damasio, A. R.. 1997. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275: 1293–5.Google Scholar
Brocas, I. and Carrillo, J.. 2008. The brain as a hierarchical organization. American Economics Review forthcoming.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. 2008. The Case for Mindful Economics. In Foundations of positive and normative economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 43–69. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., eds. 2008. Foundations of positive and normative economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carson, R. T. and Hanemann, W. M.. 2005. Contingent valuation. In Handbook of environmental economics, Vol. 2, ed. Mäler, K.-G. and Vincent, J. R., 821–936. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. 2006. Stumbling on happiness. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2007. Welfare without happiness. AEA Papers and Proceedings 97: 471–6.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In Foundations of positive and normative economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A., 3–42. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. and Jamison, J.. 2008. On the assessment and prediction of subjective well-being. UC Berkeley working paper.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. 2008. Neuroeconomics: a critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. and Camerer, C.. 2005. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science 310: 1680–3.Google Scholar
Jamison, J. and Wolpert, D. H.. 2008. Persona Games. USC working paper.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1888. The Theory of Political Economy, 3rd edn. London: MacMillan and Co.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 1994. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150: 18–36.Google Scholar
Maia, T. V. and McClelland, J. L.. 2004. A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: What participants really know in the Iowa gambling task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Natural Sciences, USA 101: 16075–80.Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D. and Green, J. R.. 1995. Microeconomic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCabe, K. A. 2008. Neuroeconomics and the economic sciences. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Persaud, N., McLeod, P. and Cowey, A.. 2007. Post-decision wagering objectively measures awareness. Nature Neuroscience 10: 257–61.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1938. A note on the pure theory of consumer's behaviour. Economica 5: 61–71.Google Scholar
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J. and Frith, C. D.. 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439: 466–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobel, J. 2005. Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature XLIII: 392–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, J., Madsen, K., Christensen, M. and Jamison, J.. 2007. Parieto-temporal activation modulates pure time preference. University of Copenhagen working paper.Google Scholar