Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T09:56:47.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SYLLOGISM OF NEURO-ECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Camillo Padoa-Schioppa
Camillo Padoa-Schioppa*
Affiliation:
Washington University (in St. Louis)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If neuroscience is to contribute to economics, it will do so by the way of psychology. Neural data can and do lead to better psychological theories, and psychological insights can and do lead to better economic models. Hence, neuroscience can in principle contribute to economics. Whether it actually will do so is an empirical question and the jury is still out. Economics currently faces theoretical and empirical challenges analogous to those faced by physics at the turn of the twentieth century and ultimately addressed by quantum theory. If “quantum economics” will emerge in the coming decades, it may well be founded on such concepts as cognitive processes and brain activity.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Neuroeconomics , November 2008 , pp. 449 - 457
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ainslie, G. 1992. Picoeconomics: the strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. W. 1972. More is different. Science 177: 393–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benhabib, J. and Bisin, A.. 2005. Modeling internal commitment mechanisms and self-control: a neuroeconomics approach to consumption-saving decisions. Games and Economic Behavior 52: 460–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. and Rangel, A. 2004. Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economics Review 94: 1558–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. 1959. A review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior.Language 35: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. 1934. On the method of theoretical physics. Philosophy of Science 1: 163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellows, L. K. 2004. The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual framework. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3: 159–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Gamow, G. 1966 [1985]. Thirty years that shook physics: The story of quantum theory. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P. W., Dorris, M. C. and Bayer, H. M. 2005. Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games and Economic Behavior 52: 213–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2008. The case for mindless economics. In The foundations of positive and normative economics, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hubel, D. H. and Wiesel, T. N.. 2005. Brain and visual perception: the story of a 25-year collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laibson, D. 1997. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 443–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Niehans, J. 1990. A history of economic theory: classic contributions, 1720–1980. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Padoa-Schioppa, C. 2007. Orbitofrontal cortex and the computation of economic value. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1121: 232–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padoa-Schioppa, C. and Assad, J. A.. 2006. Neurons in orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value. Nature 441: 223–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padoa-Schioppa, C., Jandolo, L. and Visalberghi, E.. 2006. Multi-stage mental process for economic choice in capuchins. Cognition 99: B1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platt, M. L. and Padoa-Schioppa, C.. in press. Neuronal representations of value. In Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain, ed. Glimcher, P. W., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E. and Poldrack, R. A.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economics Reviews 83: 1281–302.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. C. R. 1935. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science, 2nd Edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ross, D. 2005. Economic theory and cognitive science: microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E. 1996. Comment to Tversky's “Rational theory and constructive choice”. In The rational foundations of economic behavior, ed. Arrow, K. J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M. and Schmidt, C., pp 198–202. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1938. A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behavior. Economica 5: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1970. Maximum principles in analytical economics. Nobel memorial lecture.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1953. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
von Hayek, F. A. 1952. The sensory order: an inquiry into the foundations of theoretical psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar