College aantekeningen
EC345: W6-W10 notes
- Vak
- Instelling
Leture, seminar and reading notes for weeks 6-10 of behavioural economics
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 58 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 58 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
bethwalton
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Subjective well-being and happinessUtility in Economics
● Jeremy Bentham: utility as hedonic pleasure/pain (directly measurable)
● Neoclassical revolution: abstraction of value via marginal utility
○ Maximising “bang for your buck”
○ Gossen, Stanley Jevons, Walras, Menger
● 20th century micro theory separated psychology and economics
○ Preference as minimal required structure
○ Representative utility only as ordinal (not cardinal) object
○ No assumptions about preferences
■ Utility of individual i is a function of consumption of individual i
○ Preferences defined as-if revealed in observed choice behaviour
○ Rejection of hedonistic assumptions of Benthamite Utility
● 1970s onwards: behavioural economics, happiness economics (Easterlin,
Kahneman, Oswald, Layars)
Cardinal and ordinal utility
● Cardinalism → utility is objective and quantifiable
○ Allows interpersonal comparison
○ Necessary for social welfare functions/public choice
○ Not necessary to service demand functions
○ Good for economics beyond behaviour → quality of outcome
● Ordinalism → utility is in terms of relative value (represents preferences)
○ Sufficient to derive demand/explore the interaction of demand+supply
○ Useful for economic theory
○ Omits the strength of preferences/experiences
Bentham: experienced utility
● Well being as experienced utility
○ Nature of value: hedonic/affective, evaluative/cognitive, eudaimonic
■ Hedonic/affective: emotional well-being
■ Evaluative/cognitive: well-being as life evaluation
■ Eudaimonic: rank yourself on a scale
● Temporal issue: immediate (instant utility), global (total utility)
○ Global → possibility of systematic errors in recollection
○ Possibility of systematic errors in forecasting
Multi-dimensional well-being (Stiglitz et al, 2010)
● Full account of well-being should consider these dimensions simultaneously:
○ Material living standards (income, consumption, wealth)
, ○ Health, education, personal activities (+ work)
○ Social connections/relationships
○ Environment (present and future)
○ Political voice and governance
○ Insecurity (economic and physical)
Subjective well-being: measurement by report
● Objective (conditions, capabilities) and subjective (experience) dimensions of
well-being are important
● Simple, direct measure of subjective well-being: by report
○ Responses to a survey-style question
○ Different techniques for obtaining the report
■ Face-to-face, postal or telephone survey
■ Momentary evaluation (experience sampling, ecological
momentary assessment)
■ Day reconstruction method: subjects keep a diary and break the
day into episodes. Report activities and feelings in that episode
■ U-index measures how much time people spend doing
unpleasant activities
● Different questions approach different concepts
○ Time frame → immediate, global, local
○ Nature of the quality of experience → hedonic, evaluative,
eudaimonic
Distribution of British life-satisfaction levels
● Most report themselves as being pretty happy
● May be underreporting of those who are less happy
The reporting function
● Subjective well-being data is censored reports of an assumed underlying,
unobservable experience utility construct
○ Censored: can only take certain values → no curvature
● r =r (h ,( y , z ,c ))+ e
○ r ( .) → reporting function
○ h( .) → underlying happiness function
○ y → socioeconomic determinants
○ z → demographic and personal characteristics
○ c → other relevant contextual factors
○ e → individual specific error term to communicating happiness
Modelling ordinal categorical dependent variables
● Reported subjective well-being as a discrete dependent variable. Options:
○ Binary discrete choice model → LPM, logit, probit
, ○ Ordinal outcome discrete choice model → ordered logit/probit
○ OLS as an indicative approximation, especially if it is a sizeable scale
■ Check the results are consistent with discrete choice methods
Subjective well-being measurement issues
● Interpersonal comparability
○ Interpretation of the question varies (translation issues if cross-country)
○ Scale may be used differently
● Bounded scale
● Observed sensitivity to context, mood, ordering effects, priming
● Possible deliberate or subconscious distorted report due to social context
○ Social desirability bias
○ May be affected by if measurement is face-to-face/by phone etc
● Global reports: errors in recollection and aggregation
○ Focusing illusion: salient measures (income) may be overweighted
○ Peak-end bias: value of remembered utility is overweighted by the
peak and end value
■ Remembered utility: utility a person thinks an event gave them
● Inevitably some error but plausible averages are found over large samples
○ Errors are not a huge issue unless they are systematic
Why are subjective well-being measures valuable?
● Validity: correlated with other well-being measures
○ Physical evidence of affection (smiling/laughing/electrical brain activity)
○ Independent evaluations
○ Self-reported health and sleep quality
○ Recent positive changes in circumstances
● Reliability over time: moderate 2-week correlation
● State-level subjective well-being effect is correlated with state-level quality of
life (calculated with non-subjective data)
● Common patterns over a wide range of datasets: U-shape with age
Subjective well-being and objective well-being
● Oswald and Wu (2010) compare life satisfaction data with state-level imputed
quality-of-life ranking
○ Life satisfaction data: 1.3 million random Americans from the BRFSS
(2005-08)
● Gabriel et al (2003) calculate the state-level quality of life calculated using
non-subjective data
○ Rank states from 1-50
○ Use many factors → weather, state park visitor numbers,
commute time, crime etc
● State quality of life ranking + life satisfaction data have a strong positive
correlation
, Subjective well-being as a measure of Choice utility
Benjamin et al (2012)
Questions
● Does (neoclassical) Choice Utility and SWB-measured utility coincide?
● Do people choose what they think would maximise their SWB?
Method
● 13 hypothetical scenarios with 2 alternatives, exploring trade-offs of factors
important in well-being (income, housing, sleep, commute, time with friends)
● Samples from 3 populations:
○ Students
○ Patients in a doctor’s waiting room
○ Nationally representative sample interviewed by phone
● Respondents are asked which alternative they would choose, and under
which they anticipate greater SWB
○ No possibility for indifference (may exaggerate the difference)
● Test whether rankings coincide
Example
● Trade-off between sleep and income
● Scenario 1: Jobs that are almost the same, but with different hours + wages
● Option 1: $80,000 a year. Reasonable hours → 7.5 hours of sleep per
night
● Option 2: $140,000 a year. Unusual hours → 6 hours of sleep per night
Findings
● Choice and anticipated well-being was consistent 83% of the time
○ 20% of choices had a discrepancy between choice + anticipated well-
being
● When controlling for own happiness, other factors are significant on choice
and subjective well-being → family happiness and social life
○ Own happiness: most important factor, explains the majority of choice
● ‘Life satisfaction‘ is a better predictor of choice than ‘Happiness measures’
● Predicted SWB coincide least with choices when students are asked
questions that are related to important decisions in their life
○ Respondents are more likely to pick higher income or ‘more money’
alternatives even if they think it has a lower predicted SWB
Conclusions
● People do not seek to maximise SWB exclusively (at least as measured here)
○ SWB is a uniquely important argument in the utility function
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper bethwalton. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €11,11. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 81311 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen