Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? – Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität / How (un-)fair are economists? New empirical evidence on market valuation and rationality

ORDO ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
René Ruske ◽  
Johannes Suttner
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Market Valuation

ZusammenfassungDer vorliegende Beitrag analysiert Unterschiede zwischen Ökonomen und Nicht-Ökonomen im Hinblick auf die Bewertung verschiedener Mechanismen zur Allokation einer knappen Ressource sowie den isolierten Einfluss von Rational Choice auf die Einstellung von Ökonomen. Zu diesem Zweck führten wir basierend auf Frey et al. (1993) und Haucap und Just (2010) unter über 600 Studenten verschiedener Fachrichtungen der Universität Münster eine Umfrage durch. Es zeigt sich, dass sich abhängig von ihrer Fachrichtung unterschiedliche Ansichten insbesondere über die Fairness des Marktmechanismus ergeben. Hauptsächlich ist dies auf Selbstselektionseffekte unter den Ökonomen zurückzuführen. Eine Konfrontation mit Rational Choice, mit der wir die Indoktrination der Ökonomen messen, führte aber kaum zu Änderungen bei der Einstellung der Ökonomen.

scholarly journals Which Diagnostic Approach Is More Valid? The DSM or the Rational-Choice Theory of Neurosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yacov Rofé
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Diagnostic Approach ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Integrate Research

<p>This article challenges the validity of the DSM-III to exclude neurosis, a decision that has led the DSM to become  “an expanding list of disease, from a few dozen disorders in the first edition to well over 200” (Grinker, 2010, p. 169; see also Warelow &amp; Holmes, 2011). It points out the unanimous consensus that the best diagnostic approach would be a theory that can account for the development and treatment of certain diagnostic categories and, at the same time, provide measurable criteria that can distinguish them from other behaviors. Accordingly, it shows that a new theory, the Rational-Choice Theory of Neurosis (RCTN) (Rofé, 2000, 2010, 2016; Rofé &amp; Rofé, 2013, 2015), which despite profound differences is similar to psychoanalysis in several fundamental respects, can offer practical diagnostic criteria that differentiate neurosis from other disorders. Three types of evidence, including a review of research literature, case studies and a new study that directly examined the validity of RCTN’s diagnostic criteria, support the validity of neurosis. The greatest advantage of RCTN’s diagnostic approach is not only is based on empirical evidence instead of the consensus of biased researchers. Rather, their main contribution is that it emerged out of a theory that succeeded to integrate research and clinical data pertaining to the development and treatment of neurosis.</p>

The impact of corporate pollution on market valuation: some empirical evidence

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Cormier ◽  
Michel Magnan ◽  
Bernard Morard
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Market Valuation ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Bounded Rationality in Compulsive Consumption

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. p30
Author(s):  
Ingo Fiedler
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Extreme Case ◽  
Pathological Gamblers ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Compulsive Consumption

The standard microeconomic assumption is that consumers’ choices maximize consumers’ utility. This theoretical article challenges this assumption by presenting a framework of an extreme case: compulsive consumption. Backed by a wide range of existing empirical evidence it is shown by the example of pathological gamblers that some consumers (1) have inconsistent preferences, (2) underestimate the time horizon and the frequency of consumption, and (3) underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits of consumption. The results do not necessarily violate rational choice theory if interpreted as intra-personal externalities. By applying the perspective of picoeconomics, it is possible to reconcile fully rational but competing agents within an individual with inconsistent aggregate decisions. Yet, from a welfare perspective, the results imply that bounded rationality can be interpreted as a source of inefficiency and can thus constitute a rationale for regulatory intervention.

A Theory of the Calculus of Voting

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Riker ◽  
Peter C. Ordeshook
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Explanatory Theory ◽  
Apparent Paradox ◽  
Political Act ◽  
Do So ◽  
As If

Much recent theorizing about the utility of voting concludes that voting is an irrational act in that it usually costs more to vote than one can expect to get in return.1 This conclusion is doubtless disconcerting ideologically to democrats; but ideological embarrassment is not our interest here. Rather we are concerned with an apparent paradox in the theory. The writers who constructed these analyses were engaged in an endeavor to explain political behavior with a calculus of rational choice; yet they were led by their argument to the conclusion that voting, the fundamental political act, is typically irrational. We find this conflict between purpose and conclusion bizarre but not nearly so bizarre as a non-explanatory theory: The function of theory is to explain behavior and it is certainly no explanation to assign a sizeable part of politics to the mysterious and inexplicable world of the irrational.2 This essay is, therefore, an effort to reinterpret the voting calculus so that it can fit comfortably into a rationalistic theory of political behavior. We describe a calculus of voting from which one infers that it is reasonable for those who vote to do so and also that it is equally reasonable for those who do not vote not to do so. Furthermore we present empirical evidence that citizens actually behave as if they employed this calculus.3

scholarly journals The impact of IAS 36 on equity values: Empirical evidence from UAE

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Yousef Shahwan ◽  
Jamal Roudaki
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Information Content ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Market Valuation ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Equity Values ◽  
Market Values ◽  
Equity Value ◽  
The Impact

Amortization requirement of goodwill asset is one of the most controversial issues in financial reporting. This study provides empirical evidence on whether goodwill amortization has significant impact on equity value. It analyses the information content of goodwill amortization in the determination of firm’s market valuation by Emirates Financial Market Listed companies that clearly reported goodwill amortization over the period 2003 to 2012 inclusive. Evidence suggests that there is a statistically significant association between equity market values and goodwill amortization in the determination of firms’ market valuation, concluding that the UAE market perceives goodwill amortization as having information content when valuing firms and the use of standardized amortization requirement may be appropriate.

Die Erklärung der Zustimmung zu familienpolitischen Umverteilungsmaßnahmen – Evidenz für dasWechselspiel von rationalen Erklärungsansätzen und der Bedeutung von Einstellungen zur Familie / The Explanation of Preferences for Family Benefits. Empirical Evidence of the Interplay between Rational Choice and Attitudes towards Family and Children

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Mehlkop ◽  
Robert Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Family Benefits

ZusammenfassungBei der Frage nach den Determinanten der Zustimmung zu sozialstaatlichen Maßnahmen seitens der Bevölkerung wird in der Literatur entweder auf die Werterwartungstheorie oder auf die Bedeutung ergebnisunabhängiger Wertorientierungen und Einstellungen zurückgegriffen. In dieser Arbeit werden beide Ansätze am Beispiel inter- generationaler Transferleistungen für Familien mit Kindern (Erhöhung des Kindergeldes) diskutiert und mithilfe der Entscheidungsheuristik des Modells der Frame Selektion berücksichtigt. Nach Auswertung von Befragungsdaten zur Salienz von familiären Einstellungen und instrumentellen Anreizen kann geschlussfolgert werden, dass beide Ansätze jeweils für unterschiedliche Teile der Bevölkerung eine Erklärung liefern können. Eine vollständige Erklärung variierender Zustimmung mithilfe eines einzigen Erklärungsansatzes kann indes als nicht ausreichend angesehen werden. Die fallspezifische Auswertung von Interaktionseffekten zwischen der generellen Einstellung zur Familie sowie der individuellen Abwägung von Kosten und Nutzen liefert neue Einsichten in die Entscheidungsprozesse. Insbesondere können Unterschiede in den Erwartungen an den Sozialstaat zwischen Befragten aus Ost- und Westdeutschland herausgearbeitet werden.

Market Valuation and Acquisition Quality: Empirical Evidence

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 633-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa H. S. Bouwman ◽  
Kathleen Fuller ◽  
Amrita S. Nain
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Market Valuation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document