A Spectre is haunting me: Gintis and Bowles

Rule of thumb: if Herb Gintis and Sam Bowles think something makes sense, you've got to take it seriously.

So I take their behavioral-game-simulation-post-Walrasian economics seriously. Unfortunately, I haven't followed their recent work and can't say anything about it except that it is innovative. Here is one paper giving an idea of what they do.

My intuition about their work is contradictory:

• On the one hand, their work might be a Trojan horse that sneaks lots of important stuff into orthodox economics (e.g., power, real human motives, and evolutionary change);
• On the other hand, their work might simply be putting solar panels on a Hummer. Solar panels are a good idea but Hummers are a horrid idea. Improving orthodox economics, as Gintis and Bowles seek to do, might extend the life of a flawed economic theory by making it more realistic and interesting. But it would still be flawed.

I'm disappointed that they still use "Pareto improvement"--a dismal ethical notion if there ever was one--as their ethical standard.

Because of my commitments now, I'm unable to look closely at Gintis' and Bowles' work. But I'm looking forward to studying it more closely in the future. (Even if I'll have to learn more about solar panels...I mean behavioral economics and game theory. ;> )

Gintis provoked a response with his recent review of A Guide to What's Wrong with Economics. The review is rhetorically powerful but logically puny. I have nothing else to say about it.

Sam Bowles (standing) and Herb Gintis