King's College London

Research portal

On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models : Recasting the Challenge. / Fumagalli, Roberto.

In: BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, 03.2017, p. 201-220.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Fumagalli, R 2017, 'On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge', BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, pp. 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y

APA

Fumagalli, R. (2017). On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge. BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY, 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y

Vancouver

Fumagalli R. On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge. BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY. 2017 Mar;201-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y

Author

Fumagalli, Roberto. / On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models : Recasting the Challenge. In: BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY. 2017 ; pp. 201-220.

Bibtex Download

@article{87e6c66903ad44ad930c20f356339c61,
title = "On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge",
abstract = "In a recent article in this Journal, Fumagalli (Biol Philos 26:617–635, 2011) argues that economists are provisionally justified in resisting prominent calls to integrate neural variables into economic models of choice. In other articles, various authors engage with Fumagalli{\textquoteright}s argument and try to substantiate three often-made claims concerning neuroeconomic modelling. First, the benefits derivable from neurally informing some economic models of choice do not involve significant tractability costs. Second, neuroeconomic modelling is best understood within Marr{\textquoteright}s three-level of analysis framework for information-processing systems. And third, neural findings enable choice modellers to confirm the causal relevance of variables posited by competing economic models, identify causally relevant variables overlooked by existing models, and explain observed behavioural variability better than standard economic models. In this paper, I critically examine these three claims and respond to the related criticisms of Fumagalli{\textquoteright}s argument. Moreover, I qualify and extend Fumagalli{\textquoteright}s account of how trade-offs between distinct modelling desiderata hamper neuroeconomists{\textquoteright} attempts to improve economic models of choice. I then draw on influential neuroeconomic studies to argue that even the putatively best available neural findings fail to substantiate current calls for a neural enrichment of economic models.",
author = "Roberto Fumagalli",
year = "2017",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y",
language = "English",
pages = "201--220",
journal = "BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY",
issn = "0169-3867",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models

T2 - Recasting the Challenge

AU - Fumagalli, Roberto

PY - 2017/3

Y1 - 2017/3

N2 - In a recent article in this Journal, Fumagalli (Biol Philos 26:617–635, 2011) argues that economists are provisionally justified in resisting prominent calls to integrate neural variables into economic models of choice. In other articles, various authors engage with Fumagalli’s argument and try to substantiate three often-made claims concerning neuroeconomic modelling. First, the benefits derivable from neurally informing some economic models of choice do not involve significant tractability costs. Second, neuroeconomic modelling is best understood within Marr’s three-level of analysis framework for information-processing systems. And third, neural findings enable choice modellers to confirm the causal relevance of variables posited by competing economic models, identify causally relevant variables overlooked by existing models, and explain observed behavioural variability better than standard economic models. In this paper, I critically examine these three claims and respond to the related criticisms of Fumagalli’s argument. Moreover, I qualify and extend Fumagalli’s account of how trade-offs between distinct modelling desiderata hamper neuroeconomists’ attempts to improve economic models of choice. I then draw on influential neuroeconomic studies to argue that even the putatively best available neural findings fail to substantiate current calls for a neural enrichment of economic models.

AB - In a recent article in this Journal, Fumagalli (Biol Philos 26:617–635, 2011) argues that economists are provisionally justified in resisting prominent calls to integrate neural variables into economic models of choice. In other articles, various authors engage with Fumagalli’s argument and try to substantiate three often-made claims concerning neuroeconomic modelling. First, the benefits derivable from neurally informing some economic models of choice do not involve significant tractability costs. Second, neuroeconomic modelling is best understood within Marr’s three-level of analysis framework for information-processing systems. And third, neural findings enable choice modellers to confirm the causal relevance of variables posited by competing economic models, identify causally relevant variables overlooked by existing models, and explain observed behavioural variability better than standard economic models. In this paper, I critically examine these three claims and respond to the related criticisms of Fumagalli’s argument. Moreover, I qualify and extend Fumagalli’s account of how trade-offs between distinct modelling desiderata hamper neuroeconomists’ attempts to improve economic models of choice. I then draw on influential neuroeconomic studies to argue that even the putatively best available neural findings fail to substantiate current calls for a neural enrichment of economic models.

U2 - 10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y

DO - 10.1007/s10539-016-9546-y

M3 - Article

SP - 201

EP - 220

JO - BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

JF - BIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

SN - 0169-3867

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454