Econo or Socio? (Week 4 post class blog)


The dichotomous conflict between Homo Economicus and Homo Sociologicus has been significantly redefined in the past 50 years. Tseng and Ng documented the evolution of Homo Economicus and sought to show how the two have coalesced. By comparing prominent ideologues, they demonstrate that the self-interest that drives rational thinking can be redefined as algorithms of values defined by society. Humans act in the self interest as defined by society.

According to Tseng and Ng Homo Economicus journeyed from pure motivation of self-interest towards maximization of utility. Theories began to associate typically societal attributes such as altruism, cooperation, and imitation. Interestingly, the strongest experiment to attest to this new development was the expansive iterations of the game theory. Social scientists witnessed self-interested individuals cooperating and even imitating other players in the game in order to maximize their potential reward. The games even suggested that players can give away some of their own reward when the group reward is deemed sufficient by some unidentifiable measurement. Was Homo Sociologicus beginning to emerge? (271)

Is monetary reimbursement the only reward for Homo Economicus? Akerlof and Kranton found that besides monetary incentives, employees standing within the organization “played a dominant role in work incentives.” (p.272) In this example social norms played an integral part of the utility that Homo Economicus might be trying to maximize even if not directly linked to monetary or otherwise tangible rewards.

This is not to suggest the Homo Economicus is being completely taken over by Homo Sociologicus. Some of the criticism of social theories’ explanation and analysis of behavior is its lack of definition of Homo Sociologicus’s accounting for conflicts in self-interest and his social role. There are a lack of criterion for how a socially driven human would choose “between norms and individual self-interest.” (p 276).

Homo Economicus is increasingly being defined by social roles, norms, and constructs. This analysis is aided by globalization which provides multitudes of cases to analyze as entire societies reckon with clashes of interest and socially constructed behaviors. We also need to analyze how true these two theories are in regards to international relations. What are the additional complexities introduced when now national interests, social factors come into conflict with malleable and ill-defined international norms and behaviors? How does game theory change as individuals morph into nation states, international organizations, and global enterprises?

 

Work Cited

Ng, Irene C. L., and Lu-Ming Tseng. "Learning to Be Sociable The Evolution of Homo Economicus." The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67, no. 2 (2008): 265-86. http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/27739704.

Comments

  1. EHMay 31, 2018 at 9:25 PM

    My first thought on finishing your blog (fantastic background on HE and HS), was to wonder if altruisim for selfish purposes has any place in the theory as applied to IR. ie corporations/governments giving other nations money, projects, or infrastructure to induce gratitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 1, 2018 at 4:53 PM

      I definitely think it does. Altruism can be used to strategically to attain certain things. What these authors suggest is that people are motivated by more than tangible or traditional incentives. Someone might use altruism to attain a higher standing in someone else's mind or opinion because that in and of itself is a reward worth sacrificing for.

      Delete
  2. Amanda BossJune 14, 2018 at 10:18 AM

    I want to start by agreeing with Emma, that you have provided a nice background on Homo Economicus. When I started the reading in this module, I began to think that I agreed with HE, specifically with the idea of human beings as self-interested and taking any action to get the most use as a consumer, and to gain the most possible as a producer. However, my thinking started to change after studying Homo Sociologicus. I found myself agreeing more with the concept that human beings have these preferences and ideas because of the environment around them. I had previously used the argument that growing up on a farm, in rural Wisconsin, shaped not only my preferences, but also the ideas I hold, such as the interactions between people. I strongly believe that my idea on how people should interact with each other is different from another person's idea, that say grew up in the urban New York City.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more