Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle

The standard expected utility (EUT) model of tax evasion predicts that evasion is decreasing in the marginal tax rate (the Yitzhaki puzzle). Recent literature shows cases in which incorporating prospect theory (PT) does and does not overturn the Puzzle. In a general environment that nests both PT and EUT preferences, we provide a detailed study of how the elements of PT affect the Puzzle. PT does not always reverse the Puzzle, hence we give and interpret conditions for when it does and does not. When allowing for stigma and/or variable audit probability, PT reverses the Puzzle in the same way and with the same limitations as does EUT, if equally augmented

Team reasoning and the rational choice of payoff-dominant outcomes in games

Standard game theory cannot explain the selection of payoff-dominant outcomes that are best for all players in common-interest games. Theories of team reasoning can explain why such mutualistic cooperation is rational. They propose that teams can be agents and that individuals in teams can adopt a distinctive mode of reasoning that enables them to do their part in achieving Pareto-dominant outcomes. We show that it can be rational to play payoff-dominant outcomes, given that an agent group identifies. We compare team reasoning to other theories that have been proposed to explain how people can achieve payoff-dominant outcomes, especially with respect to rationality. Some authors have hoped that it would be possible to develop an argument that it is rational to group identify. We identify some large—probably insuperable—problems with this project and sketch some more promising approaches, whereby the normativity of group identification rests on morality

Rationality in Economics: Theory and Evidence

We examine the various senses in which economist use the term “rationality” and then outline some of the commonly drawn implications and auxiliary assumptions. Finally, we confront the implications with the empirical evidence, drawing on the insights from the exciting new field of behavioral economics.</div

Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox

We formulate a simple quantum decision model of the Ellsberg paradox. We report the results of an experiment we performed to test the matching probabilities predicted by this model using an incentive compatible method. We find that the theoretical predictions of the model are in conformity with our experimental results. We compare the predictions of our quantum model with those of probably the most successful non-quantum model of ambiguity, namely, the source dependent model. The predictions of our quantum model are not statistically significantly different from those of the source dependent model. The source dependent model requires the specification of probability weighting functions in order to fit the evidence. On the other hand, our quantum model makes no recourse to probability weighting functions. This suggests that much of what is normally attributed to probability weighting may actually be due to quantum probability.</p

Classical and belief-based gift exchange models: Theory and evidence

We derive and test the predictions of three competing models of gift exchange: Classical (CGE); Augmented (AGE) based on unexpected wage surprises; and Belief-based (BGE) that uses belief hierarchies to formally model reciprocity and guilt-aversion. Following Akerlof (1982), we also introduce signals of the typical wage, θw, and effort level, θe, in similar firms. We examine the worker's optimal effort in response to exogenous variation in the wage, w, the signals θw, θe, and a signal of the firm's expectations of effort from the worker, s. All three models predict gift exchange, however, the predictions of the AGE and the CGE models with respect to θw, θe, and s, are rejected. The BGE model successfully explains the data in all these respects. Gift exchange is underpinned by guilt-aversion. We also provide novel empirical evidence of first order stochastic dominance of first and second order beliefs.</p

Psychological and Social Motivations in Microfinance Contracts: Theory and Evidence

Microfinance contracts have enormous economic and welfare significance. We study, theoretically and empirically, the problem of effort choice under individual liability (IL) and joint liability (JL) contracts when loan repayments are made either privately, or publicly in front of one’s social group. Our theoretical model identifies guilt from letting down the expectations of partners in a JL contract, and shame from falling short of normatively inadequate effort, under public repayment of loans, as the main psychological drivers of effort choice. Evidence from our lab-in-the-field experiment in Pakistan reveals large treatment effects and confirms the central roles of guilt and shame. Under private repayment, a JL contract increases effort by almost 100% relative to an IL contract. Under public repayment, effort levels are comparable under IL and JL contracts, which is consistent with recent empirical results. This indicates that shame-aversion plays a more important role as compared to guilt-aversion. Under IL, repayment in public relative to private repayment increases effort by 60%, confirming our shame-aversion hypothesis. Under JL, a comparison of private and public repayment shows that shame trumps guilt in explaining effort choices of borrowers