This paper deals with classroom experiments in economics, which have been derived from laboratory experiments. These experiments cover a broad range of topics, from strictly economic ones (like market games or auctions) to those with overlaps to other domains such as public policy. The paper discusses different methodologies of research and classroom experiments, introduces the benefits of the latter and presents a concrete teaching experiment used in public economics courses at the Faculty of Economics and Administration of Masaryk University. Another link between economic experiments and public policy is outlined here as well, namely the importance of experimental results for public policy makers.
Models of the relationship between employees and employers presented during the undergraduate and graduate studies of economics usually reflect the formal neoclassical approach. Moreover, in everyday life as well as in the public debate those relations are often presented as conflicts in which only one party may win. Such an oversimplified approach to the labor market relationships does not correspond with reality and may affect people's decisions, treating the second party as an enemy. The article presents the multistage educational experiment (18 rounds), in which students play the roles of employers and employees. Their outcomes depend on the declared involvement, their remuneration, and the level of social trust. Results of the experiment reveal that all these factors depend heavily on students' openness to communicate with other players as well as the employer-employee matching. Participation in the experiment allows students to experience that even conflict-provoking labor market relationships do not have to go along with strong disputes and radical opportunism. Learning how to cooperate in the labor market could not only be economically profitable, but it can also help to build social capital, which is even more crucial.
The author seeks an answer to a complex question whether and on what conditions economy may be considered an empirical science. In the first part, basic epistemological and methodological issues along with the problems of rhetorical nature encountered by economists are discussed. In the next part peculiarities of economics are explored, in particular limited possibility of experimenting, uncertainty and generality of forecasts, how research and publication of results influence an object of research and the linkages between economics and human interests. Finally the future directions for economic research are debated, especially, the possible potential of experimental economics and observation, as well as whether and to what extent results of a research can be predicted.
The aim of this pilot study is to investigate relationships between various risk-attitude measures and players’ behavior in the first-round of a repeated stag hunt game. This research report presents preliminary findings that the first-round behavior cannot be explained by any of the commonly used risk-elicitation instruments and describes relationships between those instruments.
The expected utility theory axioms have been studied experimentally. Three of the experiments are a repetition of an earlier test in slightly changed circumstances, while the other two are original. The participants were incentivised with rewards, which did not happen in the replicated tests. The results confirmed the degeneration of the expected utility theory as a scientific research program. The evidence that resulted from the tests supported the hypothesis on the cumulative prospect theory predicting facts not forecasted by the EUT.
In this paper some special features of phenomenology which enable them to be a possible ground for a research program in economics, complementing previous mainstream results, are reviewed. The potential fruits and their importance will also be highlighted. The direct purpose is to study what scientific problems have been hidden beyond the territory of mainstream economics and what scientific methods are available for economists to scrutinize an area mainly ignored, that is, the unquestioned aspects of our socio-economic reality. Along these lines we can get to findings that can complement the traditional research directions of mainstream economics. In this paper some special features of phenomenology which enable them to be a possible ground for a research program in economics, complementing previous mainstream results, are reviewed. The potential fruits and their importance will also be highlighted. The direct purpose is to study what scientific problems have been hidden beyond the territory of mainstream economics and what scientific methods are available for economists to scrutinize an area mainly ignored, that is, the unquestioned aspects of our socio-economic reality. Along these lines we can get to findings that can complement the traditional research directions of mainstream economics.
Artykuł podejmuje problematykę efektu posiadania na gruncie marketingu doświadczeń, który obecnie staje się coraz ważniejszym narzędziem promocji produktów i usług. Praca opiera się na analizie literatury teoretycznej oraz badań empirycznych. Poruszony temat jest niezwykle ważny zarówno z punktu widzenia marketingu, jak i ekonomii. W artykule dowiedziono, że efekt uposażenia może wpływać na wycenę produktu, a w konsekwencji na decyzje zakupowe konsumentów. Może być zatem uznany za jeden z istotnych mechanizmów marketingu doświadczeń.
EN
The main subject of the article is the endowment effect in an experience marketing context. Experience marketing is becoming increasingly important tool used for promotion of products and services. The paper is based on an analysis of theoretical literature and empirical research. The subject is very significant from both marketing and economic point of view. The article demonstrated that the endowment effect may affect pricing of products and consequently consumers’ buying decisions. Hence, it may be deemed one of the crucial mechanisms of experience marketing.
Artykuł prezentuje wyniki badań eksperymentalnych nad wybranymi aspektami kapitału społecznego w Polsce na tle innych państw. W odróżnieniu od wcześniejszych badań zastosowano inną metodę pomiaru poziomu kapitału społecznego, która umożliwia obiektywizację oceny zasobów tego kapitału. Zastosowana metoda badawcza bazuje na obserwacjach, nie zaś na deklaracjach respondentów, co pozwala na uchwycenie luki intencjonalno-behawioralnej. Analizowane są w nim następujące aspekty: zaufanie, wiarygodność i współpraca. W artykule porównano wyniki typowych gier eksperymentalnych – gry „zaufanie” oraz gry „dobro publiczne” – przeprowadzanych na całym świecie, w tym polskie badania autorów przeprowadzone na grupie 1540 studentów w 16 miastach – stolicach regionów Polski. Wyniki analizy porównawczej wskazują na niski poziom zaufania obserwowanego, co potwierdza wyniki przeprowadzanych cyklicznie badań sondażowych, niski poziom wiarygodności, jednak towarzyszy im zaskakująco wysoki poziom współpracy obserwowany w grze „dobro publiczne”.
EN
This article presents the results of experimental research carried out in Poland on chosen aspects of social capital. The aspects considered are: trust, trustworthiness, and cooperation. The authors use a novel method of assessing the level of social capital, which is aimed at describing the form of such capital more objectively. The method applied is based on the observed behaviour of individuals, and not on declarations. This enables us to investigate the gap between intention and behaviour. Our research was conducted on a total of 1540 students at universities in 16 Polish cities – each being a regional capital, and was based on commonly used experimental games: the „Trust Game” and the „Public Goods Game”. These results are compared to studies from a large number of other countries all over the world. The results from the trust game indicate that there is a low level of trust in Poland, which confirms the results obtained from periodic social surveys. However, the level of cooperation observed in the „Public Goods Game” is surprisingly high.
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zróżnicowania przestrzennego kapitału społecznego w Polsce determinowanego różnicami w rozwoju historycznym (regiony historyczne) oraz w układzie wieś – miasto – metropolia. Wcześniejsze badania wskazują na istnienie takich różnic, jednak opierają się na danych deklaratywnych, mających swoje mankamenty. W pracy zastosowano nową metodę oceny kapitału społecznego – obserwację zachowań badanych osób w eksperymencie teoriogrowym – którą skonfrontowano z badaniami ankietowymi w celu uchwycenia luki intencjonalno-behawioralnej. Badania przeprowadzone na próbie 1540 osób wskazują na niewielkie zróżnicowanie kapitału społecznego pomiędzy zastosowanymi jednostkami podziału przestrzennego, na istnienie różnic pomiędzy tym, co deklarowane, a tym, co obserwowane w kwestii zaufania, wiarygodności oraz współpracy. Wyniki tych badań słabo korelują z wynikami badań wcześniejszych.
EN
The aim of the paper is to present spatial variation of social capital in Poland, especially in relation to historical differences between various regions (resulting from the country’s partitions and border changes) and the level of urbanization. Previous studies indicate that such variation exists. However, they were carried out on the basis of declarations, an approach which has its drawbacks. This study uses a novel approach to assessing social capital: observing the behaviour of a study group using experimental economics, used in conjunction with a questionnaire which enables us to study the intention-behaviour gap. The study group consisting of 1540 individuals indicates very little variation between the regions. However, there are differences concerning the gap between declarations and behaviour in questions related to trust, trustworthiness, and cooperation, and our results confirm the conclusions from previous studies only weakly.
Economics needs psychology. It is impossible to explain social and economic phenomena on the basis of typical economic models. Economics has opened to social sciences and thus modified its own test methods and language, and extended the research area. As a result of the cooperation between economics and psychology, numerous scientific subdisciplines were formed, and economic models and theories developed new meanings and applications. Yet, not every interdisciplinary research is cognitively fertile for economics. What economics risks is losing its own scientific identity and sight of its subject of research. The purpose of the paper is to analyse the opportunities and threats that appear in the scope of research done and actions taken in economics and psychology.
PL
Ekonomia potrzebuje psychologii. Wyjaśnianie zjawisk społeczno-gospodarczych nie jest możliwe w oparciu o typowe modele ekonomiczne. Ekonomia otworzyła się na nauki społeczne, modyfikując tym samym metodę badawczą, język i rozszerzając obszar badawczy. W wyniku kooperacji ekonomii i psychologii powstały liczne dyscypliny naukowe „z pogranicza” (subdyscypliny), a modele i teorie ekonomiczne zyskały nowe znaczenie i zastosowanie. Jednak nie każde badanie interdyscyplinarne jest dla ekonomii płodne poznawczo. Ekonomia może stracić swoją tożsamość naukową i zgubić przedmiot badań. Celem artykułu była analiza szans i zagrożeń, które pojawiają się w obszarze badań i podejmowanych działań przez ekonomię i psychologię.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.