Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics

By B. Douglas Bernheim, Antonio Rangel. 2007

226 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c223cb0b8b2df3c2404111893e4da06114b21ef3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

(A,f): Choice With Frames (2008, unknown): “Bernheim and Rangel (2007) independently develop a framework, called choice with ancillary conditions that is similar to the framework of choice with frames.”
Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics (2016, background): “Bernheim and Rangel (2007, 2009) propose an approach to behavioural welfare economics that is similar to preference purification.”
Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review (2019, methodology): “…sophisticated multiple-agent models in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics emerged “Cold” vs. “hot” modes Loewenstein 1996; Bénabou and Tirole 2002; Bernheim and Rangel 2004, 2007; Ainslie 2001, 2005; Soman et al. 2005 Cognition vs. emotion Sanfey et al. 2003 Deliberative system vs. affective…”
Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism (2008, methodology): “A related line of argument is advanced by Bernheim and Rangel (2007) under the banner of ‘behavioural welfare economics’.”
Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics (2010, background): “Camerer (2003), Thaler and Sunstein (2008) provide good overviews of such arguments, whereas Sugden (2004), Bernheim and Rangel (2007), Bernheim and Rangel (2009) provide alternative choice-based approaches when people make mistakes.”
The Welfare Economics of Default Options in 401(k) Plans (2015, methodology): “We interpret (6) simply as an analytic device for recapitulating the dependence of a choice mapping on a decision frame f .”
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics1 (2016, methodology): “” For example Carroll et al. (2009) analyze the welfare effects of 401(k) default options using a model of sophisticated time inconsistency.”
Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence (2008, unknown): “Bernheim and Rangel (2007) take a more agnostic approach, and propose a method for constructing bounds on welfare gains based purely on observed choices even when there is no underlying utility representation available for those choices.”
On Nudging: A Review of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (2009, background): “The task of revising theoretical welfare economics to make it compatible with soft paternalism has been begun by Bernheim and Rangel ( 2007 ).”
A Review of Nudges: Definitions, Justifications, Effectiveness (2020, unknown): “…https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6324-7460 IvanMoscati https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8995-0015 NOTES 1 See Camerer et al. (2003), Sunstein and Thaler (2003), Bernheim and Rangel (2007), Kőszegi and Rabin (2007), Loewenstein andHaisley (2008), Bernheim andRangel (2009), andDhami (2016, chapter 22).”
CATEGORIZE THEN CHOOSE: BOUNDEDLY RATIONAL CHOICE AND WELFARE (2012, methodology): “([33] and [32]), Bernheim and Rangel ([ 5 ]), Manzini and Mariotti ([20]), Cherepanov, Fed-”