The economic analysis of rationality in the tradition of Harvey Leibenstein

The paper is devoted to the economic analysis of rationality in the tradition of Harvey Leibenstein: the authors perceive rationality as “calculatedness” when making decisions, while the degree of this “calculatedness” is interpreted as a variable. Thus, this approach does not correspond to the generally accepted neoclassical interpretation of rationality, according to which rationality is both full and constant. The authors believe that such a neoclassical approach makes too stringent requirements for the abilities of people. In real life, people do not behave like calculating machines. The paper discusses various factors limiting the degree of rationality of individuals. One group of factors is associated with external information constraints such as the complexity and extensiveness of information, as well as the uncertainty of the future. Another group of factors is related to informal institutions. In particular, the paper states that the system of planned socialism contributes to less rationality than the system of market capitalism. Thus, in the post-socialist countries, including contemporary Russia, one should not expect a high degree of rationality of the behavior of economic entities. The paper mentions, in particular, the factors of rationality caused by informal institutions, such as the propensity to calculate, the propensity to be independent when making decisions and the propensity to set goals. The authors also believe that people who live on their own are usually more rational than people who share a common household with someone else. This assumption is verified econometrically based on data on young urban residents collected by the authors. It turned out that the behavior of people included in this database, in general, corresponds to what the authors believed.

1. Alchian A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 58, no. 3, рp. 211–221.

2. Arthur W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American Economic Review, vol. 84 (2), рp. 406–411.

3. Avtonomov V. S. (1998). Model of Man in Economic Science. Saint Petersburg, Ekonomicheskaya Schkola (in Russian).

4. Avtonomov V. S. (2017). Constant or variable rationality as an assumption of economic theory. Journal of The New Economic Association, no. 1 (33), pp. 142–146 (in Russian).

5. Belianin A. V. (2017a). Homo oeconomicus и Homo postoeconomicus. Journal of The New Economic Association, no. 1 (33), pp. 142–146 (in Russian).

6. Belianin A. V. (2017b). Face to face to human being: Achievements and challenges of behavioral economics. Journal of The New Economic Association, no. 2 (34), pp. 166–175 (in Russian).

7. Bezemer D. (2001). Post-Socialist Financial Fragility: The Case of Albania. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 25, pp. 1–23.

8. Dean J. W., Perlman M. (1998). Harvey Leibenstein and a pioneer of our time. The Economic Journal,

9. vol. 108 (446), pp. 132–152.

10. Jones B. D. (2002). Bounded rationality and public policy: Herbert A. Simon and the decisional foundation of collective choice. Policy Science, vol. 35 (3), pp. 269–284.

11. Hodgson G. M. (1997). The ubiquity of habits and rules. Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 21 (6), pp. 663–684.

12. Hodgson G. M. (2000). Habits, rules and economic behavior. Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 1, pp. 39–55 (in Russian).

13. Kleyner G. B. (1999). Crisis of mutual expectations. Obshchestvennye Nauki i Sovremennost’, vol. 2, pp. 5–19 (in Russian).

14. Kregel J. (1995). A financial structure for developing market mechanisms in Eastern Europe. Finance, Development and Structural Change. Ed. by P. Arestis, V. Chick. Aldershot, Edward Elgar, pp. 168–179.

15. Lavoie M. (1992). Foundations of Post Keynesian Economic Analysis. Aldershot, Edward Elgar.

16. Lavoie M. (1993). A Post Keynesian approach to consumer choice. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, vol. 16 (4), pp. 539–562.

17. Leibenstein H. (1976). Beyond Economic Man. A New Foundation for Microeconomics. London, Harvard University Press, 225 p.

18. Mitchell W. C. (1913). Business Cycles. Berkeley, University of California Press, 610 p.

19. Rutherford M. (1995). Institutions in Economics. The Old and New Institutionalism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

20. Simon H. (1979). Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations. American Economic Review, vol. 69, pp. 493–512.

21. Simon H. (1993). Rationality as a product and a process of thought. THESIS, no. 3, pp. 16–38 (in Russian).

22. Smith A. (2016). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Moscow, Eksmo (in Russian).

23. Tikhonova N. E. (2014). Phenomenon of poverty in contemporary Russia. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, no. 1, pp. 7–19 (in Russian).

24. Tikhonova N. E. (2018). Life success and social status factors in the minds of Russians. Vestnik Instituta Sotsiologii, no. 27, pp. 11–43 (in Russian).

25. Veblen T. (1898). Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 12 (4), pp. 373–397.