scholarly journals In Honor of David Kreps, Winner of the John Bates Clark Medal

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Tirole
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Asset Pricing ◽  
Food Chain ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Nutritional Content ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
The Common

David Kreps is the winner of the 1989 John Bates Clark Medal, given to “that American economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge.” I will try to explain where Kreps's contributions fit in the food chain of economic ideas, why they have a high nutritional content, and why they should be in the diet of the common economist. I will arbitrarily divide this review into three major themes of Kreps's work: individual decision making, game theory (foundational and applied), and asset pricing.

The Limits of the Law of the Least Ambitious Program

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Hovi ◽  
Detlef F. Sprinz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Joint Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Veto Player ◽  
Ambitious Program ◽  
The Law

Arild Underdal's work on the Law of the Least Ambitious Program (LLAP) is a significant contribution to our understanding of the logic of international collaboration. The LLAP, however, applies only under particular conditions. After comparing the law to the joint decision trap and the veto player concept, we discuss four observations that tend to limit the law's domain. First, while the LLAP is intended to apply to decision-making under unanimity, in a number of international bodies decisions are made by some kind of majority voting. Second, the LLAP assumes that the alternative to collective agreement is individual decision-making, yet in practice the relevant alternative (the “reversion rule”) is often the continuation of some pre-existing collaborative arrangement. Third, whereas the LLAP assumes that the unanimity rule invariably favors the least ambitious program, there are interesting cases where this assumption does not hold. Finally, the LLAP does not take into account that the outcome of international decision-making not only depends on the decision rule and the reversion rule, but also on the voting sequence.

scholarly journals Opinion Diversity and the Resilience of Cooperation in Dynamical Networks

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1801
Author(s):  
Adam Lee Miles ◽  
Matteo Cavaliere
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Population Structure ◽  
Computational Model ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Information Cascades ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Shared Goal

Across various scenarios, individuals cooperate with others to contribute towards a shared goal and ensure self-preservation. In game theory, the act of cooperation is considered as an individual producing some form of benefit to be utilised by others, under the expectation others will return the favour. In several scenarios, individuals make use of their own information to aid with their decision about who to connect and cooperate with. However, the choice of cooperation can be taken advantage of by opportunistic defectors, which can lead to significant disruption. This paper investigates how the diversity of opinion can contribute to the structure and mechanics of a dynamical network model and to the resilience of cooperation, by utilising a computational model where individuals make use of both public and private information to implement their decision. Our results show that increasing diversity leads to more stable, less connected and less prosperous networks coupled to more frequent, but shallower information cascades. Our work generally shows that the outcome of the conflict between cooperators and cheaters strongly depends on the interplay between population structure, individual decision making and individual opinions.

Minimizing Missed Opportunities: Modeling Relationships between the State and Business in Russia

2009 ◽  
pp. 42-61
Author(s):  
A. Oleynik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The State ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Power Domination ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Optimal Outcomes

Power involves a number of models of choice: maximizing, satisficing, coercion, and minimizing missed opportunities. The latter is explored in detail and linked to a particular type of power, domination by virtue of a constellation of interests. It is shown that domination by virtue of a constellation of interests calls for justification through references to a common good, i.e. a rent to be shared between Principal and Agent. Two sources of sub-optimal outcomes are compared: individual decision-making and interactions. Interactions organized in the form of power relationships lead to sub-optimal outcomes for at least one side, Agent. Some empirical evidence from Russia is provided for illustrative purposes.

scholarly journals Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Bogert ◽  
Aaron Schecter ◽  
Richard T. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Social Influence ◽  
Correct Answer ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Personal Networks ◽  
Human Judgment ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Individual Decision Making

AbstractAlgorithms have begun to encroach on tasks traditionally reserved for human judgment and are increasingly capable of performing well in novel, difficult tasks. At the same time, social influence, through social media, online reviews, or personal networks, is one of the most potent forces affecting individual decision-making. In three preregistered online experiments, we found that people rely more on algorithmic advice relative to social influence as tasks become more difficult. All three experiments focused on an intellective task with a correct answer and found that subjects relied more on algorithmic advice as difficulty increased. This effect persisted even after controlling for the quality of the advice, the numeracy and accuracy of the subjects, and whether subjects were exposed to only one source of advice, or both sources. Subjects also tended to more strongly disregard inaccurate advice labeled as algorithmic compared to equally inaccurate advice labeled as coming from a crowd of peers.

scholarly journals Ageing on-line in risk society: Elderly people managing the new risks via new media in the context of decreasing ontological security

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irena Carpentier Reifova ◽  
Sylvie Fišerová
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Media ◽  
Elderly People ◽  
Risk Society ◽  
Ontological Security ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Old People ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
On Line ◽  
Second Modernity

This article proposes a theoretical framework for studying new media and its use by elderly people in risk society. Old people and their practices of new media use are discussed in light of the concepts of age cohort, generation and media generation. The article detects homology between individualization (a backbone of the second modernity as defined by Ulrich Beck) in the management of new risks and operation of new media language. Consequently, the concept of “double individualization of responsibility” is coined and connection is made to the effects of new media and new risks on ontological security. The argument is taken further onto the ground of critical gerontology, which claims that individual decision-making and fluidity of the second modernity is a source of insecurity and anxiety mainly for the old people. The article eventually presents the area of e-health as a research field for further exploration of how old people experience autonomy, individual decision making, and the absence of (or conflict with) external authority while dealing with the health risks on-line.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document