Display:
I'm a bit short of time here, so sorry if this has already been mentioned above: But generally speaking, isn't it pretty simple to model altruism as part of "self-interest"?

If I'm being altruistic to my brother or friends, not only do I implicitly expect similar treatment in return (i.e. there's a present value of future expected benefits involved), but this rather banal aspect aside, I also derive pleasure directly from doing it. For instance, I enjoy running errants for my girlfriend. Although it is partly offset by the annoyance of some of the tasks, generally it increases my utility because it's a way for me to signal to her how much I care and it elevates our relationship in my eyes.

In this way, altruistic impulses can easily be incorporated into a utility-based model with indifference curves. Simply stated: you just derive utility from altruism and "moral" behaviour. There's no reason why this is necessariloy an oxymoron.

by Almanax on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 06:36:38 AM EST
Thanks for that Almanax.

It's certainly not a question of either Utility or Altruism, is it?

So modelling with different criteria and curves makes sense in principle, but the Devil's in the Detail (and the Definition)

When you are in power you have to stretch the truth, and then it won't ever go back to it's normal shape

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 07:32:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If one defines utility as what any action increases, the definition becomes tautological. And pretty uninteresting. Anything can then be described as utility.

A lot of things (not only altruism) cannot be turned into numbers to feed into economics calculation, and thus aren't part of economic utility, despite attempts to turn this concept into an universal human behavior.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 09:10:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If one defines utility as what any action increases, the definition becomes tautological. And pretty uninteresting. Anything can then be described as utility.

Funny you'd say that, because that's precisely what Economists do... when you cannot determine preferences to predict economic behaviour, use economic behaviour to infer preferences. But then you can no longer predict economic behaviour, although you can pretend that you can...

Revealed preference theory came about because the theories of consumer demand were based on a diminishing marginal rate of substitution. This diminishing MRS is based on the assumption that consumers make consumption decisions based on their intent to maximize their utility. While utility maximization was not a controversial assumption, the underlying utility functions could not be measured with great certainty. Revealed preference theory was a means to reconcile demand theory by creating a means to define utility functions by observing behavior.


Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 09:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... And adding another epicycle to the planetary orbits. Oh well.

But no, economists won't look at the other social sciences and see what they have to say about human behaviour. They ask the other social sciences to talk in Economics terms, but refuse to reciprocate.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most basic economic models do not use cardinal but only ordinal utility; in other words, you don't measure "utility-units" and compare them, you only compare whether utility of a certain action is higher or lower relative to another; and whether it is higher or lower is usually judged by revealed preference i.e. if I prefer running the errant for my girlfriend rather than letting herself do it, I show that I derive higher utility from the former choice. For the basic utility analysis framework, it is thus not necessary to try to turn altruism into exactly measured and comparable numbers.

In any case, I don't deny that it's a complicated subject and I'm no expert.

So at least for the basic utility models as taught in modern microeconomics, you can easily operationalise altruism as part of utility analysis.

by Almanax on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 08:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ups, i forgot to delete/move that last sentence
by Almanax on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 08:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
another correction: for the girlfriend example, it would be more precise to say that "If I actually run the errand (or say that I would in a survey), rather than letting her do it.." i.e. if I reveal my actual choice, I thereby show that I prefer one action relative to another. Hence we can rank the two in a simple indifference curve graph.
by Almanax on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 08:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Essentially, "maximising utility" is being defined as what people do...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 08:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So at least for the basic utility models as taught in modern microeconomics, you can easily operationalise altruism as part of utility analysis.

True, but in "reality" they say something like "we could do this, but it's hard, so let's concentrate on money", don't they?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 09:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm not quite sure about assumptions used in applied micro studies, I guess that depends very much on the particular study and application. It's certainly true that as soon as you actually try to apply the theory, problems of measurement and comparability hit you hard and bad and often lead to an extreme emphasis on monetary values.

However, the point I'm trying to make above relates to basic micro theory as presented in any run-of-the mill undergrad or basic post-grad course. In that "EC101" context, you can easily operationalise "altruism" in a classic utility-analysis framework where people behave as self-maximisers. The only thing you have to do is to say that some people derive utility from "altruism" or "moral behaviour" and hence prefer altruistic and moral choices, even if it hurts them in terms of e.g. money.

For instance, a typical simple post-grad micro exercise is the following:


"The preferences of a consumer are represented by the utility function u= x+y. The price of a unit of good x is 2, the price of a unit of good y is p, and the income of the consumer is M. Moreover, the consumer is given a lump-sum subsidy of that can only be used to purchase good y.

(a) Define the utility maximisation problem of the consumer.
(b) Suppose that p does not equal 2. Find the optimal amounts of x and y as functions of p, the subsidy and M."


Now this is all very abstract, but notice that in spite of the rhetoric ("purchase" etc.), the variables are not specified. You could say y is "hundreds of dollars" or you could specify it as "visits to the agent's sick grandmother". It's just stuff the agent derives utility from, and in theory you could find a representation of his utility function and indifference curves by observing how he actually choses between money and visits. Similarly, the units of prices and subsidy are not specified.

So...I concede that applications are difficult, but the underlying theory itself is not invalidated by the "altruism" criticism.

by Almanax on Fri Jul 27th, 2007 at 01:13:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, yes, it's rather easy. The only problem that throws a lot of the existing theory out of the window is including prices into the utility function. Including quantities - not only yours, but also those of the others - is fine. Complicated but fine.
by Sargon on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

European nights

by DoDo - Dec 21, 13 comments

Yuletide thread

by Sven Triloqvist - Dec 24, 89 comments

Building the shadow Internet

by danps - Dec 18, 59 comments

Stories of wonder for Christmas

by stevesim - Dec 24, 7 comments

Copper-Bottomed Investment

by ChrisCook - Dec 22, 23 comments

Occasional Series