Revue française d'économie, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 2009
21 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2008 Last revised: 26 Jun 2009
Date Written: March 10, 2009
Some economists believe that the work of neuroeconomists threatens the theory of economics. Glenn Harrison's paper "Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration" attempts to set the score, though the points he makes are hidden behind the fumes of his anger (Glenn W. Harrison 2008). The field of neuroeconomics is barely into its teenage years; and it is trying to do what? Redesign the field of economics developed over a hundred years? No, 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. Neuroeconomics is a Mendelian-Economics of sort; it is a science that is able to generate data by fixing the environment to some degree and looking to see each individual's choices from the initiation of the decision-making process to its outcome. Standard economics (SE), on the other hand, looks at the average of the outputs of many individuals and proposes how the human chose those outcomes. The two fields, neuroeconomics and SE, are evaluating two sides of the same coin; one with and the other without ceteris paribus; they are not necessarily in conflict with one another.
Keywords: Neuroeconomics, ceteris paribus, decision-making, hormones
JEL Classification: B41, C91, Z00
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Stanton, Angela A., Neuroeconomics: A Critique of 'Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration' (March 10, 2009). Revue française d'économie, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1113226