Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Decision Architecture

Abstract

Modern economic theory has been dominated by neoclassical economics since the 1970s. Like any theory, neoclassical economics also has a series of assumptions underpinning it. These assumptions have been criticized and challenged on various grounds in the past several decades. The most serious assumption is the assumption of rational economic agents who aim to maximize their utility by analyzing the costs and benefits of every decision. The presence of “homo economicus” is very rare in our society. In fact, it is practically and psychologically impossible to be rational even most of the times. Empirical and experimental research heavily corroborates this fact. Despite such massive evidence, nearly all economic models and public policies use this distorting assumption in analysis and research. The result has been catastrophic, as can be seen in the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the Dot-Com bust and numerous financial market crashes before that. Furthermore, the theory of rationality also reduces the effectiveness of government policies in achieving their objectives. Behavioral economics has emerged to address these fallacies of modern neoclassical economics and complement it to improve economic theory, methodologies and forecasting. Behavioral economics has mainly two branchesmacro theory which aims to design macro-economic models incorporating behavioral concepts and micro theory which explains the various biases that individuals, groups and institutions exhibit in economic and even social decision-making. This research is focused on micro-behavioral economic theory. While a colossal magnitude of research has been done in identifying, testing and explaining the plethora of behavioral biases, there is a dearth of research on systematically reducing these biases. This research aims to fill this gap by conducting research on private and public sector employees of 30 to 40 years age and testing for a significant difference in level of biases revealed between the two groups of employees. The research found that there is a significant level of difference in the rational decision-making behavior of the two groups of employees. It also discusses the applications of the findings and the further scope for research.