Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T05:23:49.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Beyond market behavior: Evolved cognition and folk political economic beliefs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2018

Talbot M. Andrews
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Center for Behavioral Political Economy, Stony Brook, NY 11794. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.eduandrew.delton@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/www.andrewdelton.com
Andrew W. Delton
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Center for Behavioral Political Economy, Stony Brook, NY 11794. talbot.andrews@stonybrook.eduandrew.delton@stonybrook.eduhttps://you.stonybrook.edu/talbotmandrews/www.andrewdelton.com

Abstract

Boyer & Petersen (B&P) lay out a compelling theory for folk-economic beliefs, focusing on beliefs about markets. However, societies also allocate resources through mechanisms involving power and group decision-making (e.g., voting), through the political economy. We encourage future work to keep folk political economic beliefs in mind, and sketch an example involving pollution and climate change mitigation policy.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Boehm, C. (2009) Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992) The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review 99(4):689723. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689.Google Scholar
Franciosi, R., Isaac, R. M., Pingry, D. E. & Reynolds, S. S. (1993) An experimental investigation of the Hahn-Noll revenue neutral auction for emissions licenses. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24:124.Google Scholar
Goeree, J. K., Palmer, K., Holt, C. A., Shobe, W. & Burtraw, D. (2010) An experimental study of auctions versus grandfathering to assign pollution permits. Journal of the European Economic Association 8(2–3):514–25.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H. & Quirk, P. J. (2000) Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In: Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality, ed. Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D. & Popkin, S. L., pp. 951–71. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J. O. & Szakaly-Moore, K. (1994) Designing organizations for trading pollution rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 25(2):167–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(94)90009-4.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Hammond, T. (1994) Why politics is more fundamental than economics. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6(1):526. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692894006001001.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (2003) Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noll, R. G. (1982) Implementing marketable emissions permits. The American Economic Review 72(2):120–24.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B. (2013) Moralization as protection against exploitation: Do individuals without allies moralize more? Evolution and Human Behavior 34(2):7885. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.09.006.Google Scholar
Riggio, H. R. & Riggio, R. E. (2010) Appearance-based trait inferences and voting: Evolutionary roots and implications for leadership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34(2):119–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0083-0.Google Scholar
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M. & Kim, J. (2016) General Social Surveys, 1972–2016. NORC (National Opinion Research Center) at the University of Chicago. Available at: gssdataexplorer.norc.org.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2008) Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist 63(3):182–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182.Google Scholar