No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Behavioral market design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 August 2023
Abstract
When it comes to behavioral change, economic design and behavioral science are complements, not substitutes. Chater & Loewenstein give examples from policy design. In this commentary, I use examples, often from my own research, to show how behavioral insights inform the design of the rules that govern market transactions.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ambuehl, S. (2017). An offer you can't refuse? Incentives change how we inform ourselves and what we believe. CESifo Working Paper No. 6296. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-182670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambuehl, S., Bernheim, D., & Ockenfels, A. (2021). What motivates paternalism? An experimental study. American Economic Review, 111(3), 787–830. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariely, D., Ockenfels, A., & Roth, A. E. (2005). An experimental analysis of ending rules in internet auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(4), 890–907. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.429963Google Scholar
Ashlagi, I., Gilchrist, D. S., Roth, A. E., & Rees, M. A. (2011). Nonsimultaneous chains and dominos in kidney-paired donation-revisited. American Journal of Transplantation, 11(5), 984–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergemann, D., Breuer, K., Cramton, P., Hirsch, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2023). Why is the soft-reserve auction so popular? Mimeo.Google Scholar
Berger, S., Kilchenmann, A., Lenz, O., Ockenfels, A., Schlöder, F., & Wyss, A. M. (2022). Large but diminishing effects of climate action nudges under rising costs. Nature Human Behavior, 6, 1381–1385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01379-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, S., Ockenfels, A., & Zachmann, G. (2023). Behavioral science can aid household participation in gas savings. Joule, 7(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichler, M., Ewert, M., & Ockenfels, A. (2023). Understanding behavioral motives in auctions: An equilibrium learning approach. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Breuer, K., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2023). Fixing feedback revision rules in online markets. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 32, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12512Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2013). Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. Management Science, 59(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2018). Dispute resolution or escalation? The strategic gaming of feedback withdrawal options in online markets. Management Science 64(9), 4009–4031. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Mans, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2020). Norm enforcement in markets: Group identity and the volunteering of feedback. The Economic Journal, 130, 1248–1261. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/uez056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2012). Behavioral economic engineering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Cramton, P., List, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2021). Market design, human behavior and management. Management Science, 67(9), 5317–5348. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramton, P., MacKay, D. J. C., Ockenfels, A., & Stoft, S. (2017). Global carbon pricing: The path to climate cooperation. MIT Press. http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/26042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramton, P., Ockenfels, A., Roth, A. E., & Wilson, R. B. (2020). Borrow crisis tactics to get COVID-19 supplies to where they are needed. Nature, 582, 334–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01750-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dechezleprêtre, A., Fabre, A., Kruse, T., Planterose, B., Chico, A. S., & Stantcheva, S. (2022). Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies. Working Paper No. 30265, National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., & Holtz, D. (2019). Reciprocity in two-sided reputation systems: Evidence from an experiment on Airbnb. Marketing Science, 40(6), 1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2021.1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölle, F., Kübler, D., & Ockenfels, A. (2023). Impartial policy makers prefer imposing carbon offset measures over other climate policies. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Kremer, M., Levin, J., & Snyder, C. M. (2020). Advance market commitments: Insights from theory and experience. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110, 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kute, V. B., Patel, H. V., Modi, P. R., Rizvi, S. J., Shah, P. R., Engineer, D. P., … Gandhi, S. (2021). Non-simultaneous kidney exchange cycles in resource-restricted countries without non-directed donation – A prospective single-center cohort study. Transplant International, 34(4), 669–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leider, S., & Roth, A. E. (2010). Kidneys for sale: Who disapproves, and why? American Journal of Transplantation, 10(5), 1221–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03019.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR), Bakhtin, A., Brown, N., Dinan, E., Farina, G., Flaherty, C., … Zijlstra, M. (2022). Human-level play in the game of Diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378(6624), 1067–1074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.ade9097Google ScholarPubMed
Nikiforakis, N. (2008). Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A. (2009). Marktdesign und experimentelle wirtschaftsforschung. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 10, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A. (2021). Marktdesign für eine resiliente impfstoffproduktion. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 22(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1515/pwp-2021-0031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A. (2022). Marktdesign für die gasmangellage. Wirtschaftsdienst (Hamburg, Germany), 102(11), 855–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-022-3307-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A., & Roth, A. E. (2013). Ending rules in internet auctions. In Vulkan, N., Roth, A. E., & Neeman, Z. (Eds.), Handbook of market design (1st ed., pp. 324–344). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ockenfels, A., Werner, P., & Edenhofer, O. (2020). Pricing externalities and moral behaviour. Nature Sustainability, 3, 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0554-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prendergast, C. (2017). How food banks use markets to feed the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(4), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.4.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (2002). The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics. Econometrica, 70(4), 1341–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (2007). Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (2008). What have we learned from market design? The Economic Journal, 118(527), 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. (2013). Experiments in market design. In Vulkan, N., Roth, A. E., & Neeman, Z. (Eds.), The handbook of market design (pp. 290–346). Oxford University Press, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1093–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, K., & Ockenfels, A. (2021). Focusing climate negotiations on a uniform common commitment can promote cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 118(11), e2013070118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013070118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, F. H., Campos-Mercade, P., Meier, S., Pope, D., Wengström, E., & Meier, A. N. (2023). Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences. Nature, 613, 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05512-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray
Related commentaries (33)
An inconvenient truth: Difficult problems rarely have easy solutions
Behavioral market design
Behavioral mechanism design
Behavioral public policy in practice: Misconceptions and opportunities
Behavioral winter: Disillusionment with applied behavioral science and a path to spring forward
Community-engaged research is best positioned to catalyze systemic change
Conspiracy theory
Don't throw the individual perspective out while waiting for systemic change
Expectations, opportunities, and awareness: A case for combining i- and s-frame interventions
i-Frame interventions enhance s-frame interventions
Individual-level solutions may support system-level change â if they are internalized as part of one's social identity
It's always both: Changing individuals requires changing systems and changing systems requires changing individuals
Misdiagnosing the problem of why behavioural change interventions fail
Moral psychology biases toward individual, not systemic, representations
Moving from i-frame to s-frame focus in equity, diversity, and inclusion research, practice, and policy
Nudges, regulations, and behavioral public choice
Nudging is being framed
On Skinner's pendulum: A framework for assessing s-frame hope
Optimizing behavior change through integration of individual- and system-level intervention approaches
Real systemic solutions to humanity's problems require a radical reshaping of the global political system
Structural problems require structural solutions
The influence of private interests on research in behavioural public policy: A system-level problem
The psychology and policy of overcoming economic inequality
The real cause of our complicity: The preoccupation with human weakness
The social sciences are increasingly ill-equipped to design system-level reforms
The “hearts-and-minds frame”: Not all i-frame interventions are ineffective, but education-based interventions can be particularly bad
Unpacking the nudge muddle
Use behavioral research to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level policy
Using effective psychological techniques to subvert a US sociopolitical context
When nudges have societal-level impact
Why a group-level analysis is essential for effective public policy: The case for a g-frame
Wise interventions consider the person and the situation together
“More effective” is not necessarily “better”: Some ethical considerations when influencing individual behaviour
Author response
Where next for behavioral public policy?