Bounded Rationality and Legal Scholarship

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511575488.010

8 - Bounded Rationality and Legal Scholarship

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2009

Matthew D. Adler

Edited by

Mark D. White

Show author details

Mark D. White: Affiliation:
City University of New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Any normative framework that has the structure of recommending that decision-makers advance certain goals, and that they do so in accordance with decision theory (DT), runs into the problem of bounded rationality. The problem is how to refine DT so as to be usable by a bounded decision-maker – someone with limited cognitive resources, for whom the full evaluation of her choices is impossible or at least very expensive.

This chapter has two aims. The first, pursued in sections I and II, is to discuss the problem of bounded rationality in general terms. The second, pursued in section III, is to show why the problem creates a gap at the foundations of legal scholarship. In Fairness versus Welfare, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell propose a welfarist methodology for legal scholarship. They may be wrong to think that morality is wholly welfarist, but a normative program that says that social welfare is one of a plurality of criteria by which legal scholars should evaluate laws and policies is plausible. But we have no good normative handle on how legal scholars who are bounded in their cognitive abilities should implement a welfarist or pluralistic program.

THE PROBLEM OF BOUNDED RATIONALITY

The term “bounded rationality” is sometimes used by psychologists to describe or explain certain decision-making processes without endorsing or criticizing them. By contrast, the problem of bounded rationality that I discuss in this chapter is normative.

Type: Chapter
Information: Theoretical Foundations of Law and Economics , pp. 137 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575488.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven, 2002, Fairness versus Welfare, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Joyce, James M., 1999, The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Joyce, James M. and Gibbard, Allan, 1998, “Causal Decision Theory,” in Barbera, Salvador et al., eds., Handbook of Utility Theory, vol. 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 627–666Google Scholar

Lewis, David, 1981, “Causal Decision Theory,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 69, pp. 5–30CrossRef Google Scholar

Laville, Frederic, 2000, “Foundations of Procedural Rationality: Cognitive Limits and Decision Processes,” Economics and Philosophy, 16, pp. 117–138CrossRef Google Scholar

Kreps, David M., 1988, Notes on the Theory of Choice, Boulder and London: Westview PressGoogle Scholar

Adler, Matthew D. and Sanchirico, Chris William, 2006, “Inequality and Uncertainty: Theory and Legal Applications,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155, pp. 279–377CrossRef Google Scholar

Adler, Matthew D. and Posner, Eric A., 2006, New Foundations of Cost–Benefit Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 25–61Google Scholar

Winkler, Robert L., 2003, An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision, 2nd ed., Gainesville: Probabilistic Publishing, pp. 267–350Google Scholar

Hirshleifer, Jack and Riley, John G., 1992, The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–208CrossRef Google Scholar

Stigler, George J., 1961, “The Economics of Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 69, pp. 213–225CrossRef Google Scholar

Baron, Jonathan, 2000, Thinking and Deciding, 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hastie, Reid and Dawes, Robyn M., 2001, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, Thousand Oaks: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Keren, Gideon and Teigen, Karl H., 2004, “Yet Another Look at the Heuristics and Biases Approach,” in Koehler, Derek J. and Harvey, Nigel, eds., Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 89–109CrossRef Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel, 2003, “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Bounded Economics,” American Economic Review, 93, pp. 1449–1475CrossRef Google Scholar

Gigerenzer, Gerd et al., 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–29Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert, 1982, 1997, Models of Bounded Rationality, vols. 1–3, Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Simon, Herbert, 1979, 1989, Models of Thought, vols. 1–2, New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar

Simon, Herbert, 1955, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,” in both Models of Bounded Rationality and Models of ThoughtGoogle Scholar

Byron, Michael, 1998, “Satisficing and Optimality,” Ethics, 109, pp. 67–93CrossRef Google Scholar

Byron, Michael, ed., 2004, Satisficing and Maximizing, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef

Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2000, Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Gigerenzer, Gerd and Selten, Reinhard, eds., 1999, Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2006, “Heuristics,” in Gigerenezer, Gerd and Engel, Christoph, eds., Heuristics and the Law, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 17–44Google Scholar

Payne, John W. et al., 1993, The Adaptive Decision-Maker, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Hogarth, Robin M. and Karelaia, Natalia, 2007, “Heuristic and Linear Models of Judgment: Matching Rules and Environments,” Psychological Review, 114, pp. 733–758CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fasolo, Barbara et al., 2007, “Escaping the Tyranny of Choice: When Fewer Attributes Make Choice Easier,” Marketing Theory, 7, pp. 13–26CrossRef Google Scholar

Winterfeldt, Detlof and Edwards, Ward, 1986, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 331–334Google Scholar

Temkin, Larry S., 1996, “A Continuum Argument for Intransitivity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25, pp. 175–210CrossRef Google Scholar

Millgram, Elijah, ed., 2001, Varieties of Practical Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Tuomala, Matti, 1990, Optimal Income Tax and Redistribution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 4–5Google Scholar

Mirrlees, James, 2006, Welfare, Incentives, and Taxation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–173CrossRef Google Scholar

Gibbard, Allan, 2002, “Normative Explanations: Invoking Rationality to Explain Happenings,” in Bermudez, Jose Luis and Millar, Alan, eds., Reason and Nature: Essays in the Theory of Rationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 265–282Google Scholar

Kitcher, Philip, 2001, Science, Truth, and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–135CrossRef Google Scholar