Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T01:41:13.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Of Rats and Economists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Terrence McDonough
Terrence McDonough
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the article “Experimental Confirmation of the Existence of a Giffen Good,” authored by Raymond C. Battalio, John H. Kagel, and Carl A. Kogut, appeared in 1991 in the American Economic Review it represented the culmination of two separate and seemingly unrelated traditions in the economics literature. The first is a now-venerable tradition of attempting to locate Giffen behavior in the real world. The second is a more truncated modern tradition of animal experimentation in economics. In their article, Battalio et al. combine these traditions through setting out to discover Giffen behavior in a laboratory setting using white rats as experimental subjects. The authors (p. 962) describe their experimental procedure:

Subjects were placed in an experimental chamber for approximately three hours each day, during which time they received their entire daily liquid food ration … A rat obtained quinine and root beer by pressing either of two levers mounted on a wall in the experimental chamber … Income was controlled by restricting the number of lever presses that would result in obtaining liquid. Prices were changed by varying the amount of liquid obtained at each lever press.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 397 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2003

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, D. 1979. The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy. London: Pan.Google Scholar
Amacher, R. and Ulbrich, H.. Principles of Microeconomics, 5th edition. Cinncinati, OH: South-Western Publishing.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Dwyer, G., and Kagel, J.. 1986. “Tests of Some Alternative Theories of Individual Choice Behavior.” In Slottje, Daniel, ed., Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Dwyer, G., and Kagel, J.. 1987. “Tests of Competing Theories of Consumer Choice and the Representative Consumer Hypothesis.” Economic Journal 97 (388): 842–56.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Green, L., and Kagel, J.. 1981. “Income-Leisure Tradeoffs of Animal Workers.” American Economic Review 71 (4): 621–32.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., and Kagel, J.. 1985. “Consumption-Leisure Tradeoffs of Animal Workers: Effects of Increasing and Decreasing Marginal Wage Rates in a Closed Economy Experiment.” In Smith, Vernon L., ed., Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Kagel, J. and Green, L.. 1979. “Labor Supply Behavior of Animal Workers: Towards an Experimental Analysis.” In Smith, Vernon L., ed., Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 231–53.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Kagel, J., and Kogut, C.. 1991. “Experimental Confirmation of the Existence of a Giffen Good.” American Economic Review 81 (4): 961–70.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Kagel, J., and MacDonald, D.. 1985. “Animal's Choices over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results.” American Economic Review 75 (4): 597–613.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Kagel, J., Rachlin, H. and Green, L.. 1981. “Commodity Choice Behavior with Pigeons as Subjects.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (1): 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, E. and Browning, J.. 1992. Microeconomic Theory and Applications, 4th edition. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Cabanac, M. 1992. “Pleasure: The Common Currency.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 155 (2): 173–200.Google Scholar
Castro, B. and Weingarten, K.. 1970. “Towards Experimental Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 78 (3): 598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, M. 1974. “Optimization in Ecology.” Science 183 (03 22): 1156–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooter, R. and Rappoport, Peter. 1984. “Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature 22 (2): 507–30.Google Scholar
Covich, A. 1972. “Ecological Economics of Seed Consumption by Peromyscus.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 44: 71–93.Google Scholar
Culyer, A. 1985. Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1996. God's Utility Function. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Dolan, E. and Lindsay, D.. 1991. Microeconomics, 6th edition. Orlando, FL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Dooley, P. 1983. “Consumer's Surplus: Marshall and his Critics.” Canadian Journal of Economics 16 (1): 26–38.Google Scholar
Dreze, J. and Sen, A.. 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dwyer, G. and Lindsay, C.. 1984. “Robert Giffen and the Irish Potato.” American Economic Review 74 (1): 188–92.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C., and Maurice, S.. 1974. Economic Analysis. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Green, L., Kagel, J., and Battalio, R.. 1982. “Ratio Schedules of Reinforcement and Their Relationship to Economic Theories of Labor Supply.” In Commons, M., Herrnstein, R., and Rachlin, H., eds., Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Matching and Maximizing Accounts, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Green, L., Kagel, J., and Battalio, R.. 1987. “Consumption-Leisure Tradeoffs in Pigeons: Effects of Changing Marginal Wage Rates by Varying Amount of Reinforcement.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 47 (1): 17–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargreaves Heap, Shaun and Veroufakis, Yanis. 1995. “Experimenting with Neoclassical Economics: A Critical Review of Experimental Economics.” In Rima, Ingrid H., ed., Measurement, Quantification and Economic Analysis: Numeracy in Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirschleifer, J. 1977. “Economics from a Biological Viewpoint.” Journal of Law and Economics 20 (1): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. 1995. Economics and Biology. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hursh, S. 1980. “Economic Concepts for the Analysis of Behavior.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 34 (2): 219–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hursh, S. 1984. “Behavioral Economics.” Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior 42 (3): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hursh, S. and Bauman, R.. 1987. “The Behavioral Analysis of Demand.” In Green, L. and Kagel, J. H., eds., Advances in Behavioral Economics, Vol 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 166–84.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. 1987. “Economics According to the Rats (and pigeons too): What Have We Learned and What Can We Hope to Learn?” In Roth, A., ed., Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–130.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. 1995. “Economic Choice Theory and Animal Behavior.” In Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., eds., Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. H. and Battalio, R. 1980. “Token Economy and Animal Models for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.” In Kmenta, J. and Ramsay, J., eds., Evaluation of Econometric Models. New York: Academic Press, pp. 379–402.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., Battalio, R., and Green, L.. 1995. Economic Choice Theory: An Experimental Analysis of Animal Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J., Battalio, R., Green, L. and Rachlin, H.. 1980. “Consumer Demand Theory Applied to Choice Behavior of Rats.” In Staddon, J., ed., Limits to Action: The Allocation of Individual Behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., Battalio, R., Rachlin, H., Green, L., Basmann, R., and Klemm, W.. 1975. “Economic Studies of Consumer Demand Behavior Using Laboratory Animals.” Economic Inquiry 13 (03): 22–38.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., Battalio, R., Rachlin, H., and Green, S.. 1981. “Demand Curves for Animal Consumers.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., Dwyer, G., and Battalio, R.. 1985. “Bliss Points vs. Minimum Needs: Tests of Competing Motivational Processes.” Behavioral Processes 11 (1): 61–77.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. and Green, L.. 1986. “Intertemporal Choice Behavior: Evaluation of Economic and Psychological Models.” In Green, L. and Kagel, J., eds., Advances in Behavioral Economics, Vol. 1. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 166–84.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., Green, L. and Caraco, T.. 1986. “When Foragers Discount the Future: Constraint or Adaptation.” Animal Behaviour 34 (1): 271–83.Google Scholar
Kagel, J., MacDonald, D., and Battalio, R.. 1990. “Tests of ‘Fanning Out’ of Indifference Curves: Results from Animal and Human Experiments.” American Economic Review 80 (4): 912–21.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. and Roth, A.. 1995. Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kinealy, C. 1997. “Food Exports from Ireland 1846–47.” History Ireland 5 (1) 32–36.Google Scholar
Kohler, H. 1990. Intermediate Microeconomics: Theory and Applications, 3rd edition. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Landsberg, S. 1992. Price Theory and Applications, 2nd edition. Forth Worth, TX: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Lea, S. 1981. “Animal Experiments in Economic Psychology.” Journal of Economic Psychology 1: 245–71.Google Scholar
Lea, S., Webley, P., and Young, B., eds. 1992. New Directions in Economic Psychology: Theory, Experiment and Application. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 1977. “Adaptation.” In The Encyclopedia Einaudi. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Edition.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 1978. “Fitness, Survival, and Optimality.” In Horn, D., Mitchell, R., and Stairs, G., eds., Analysis of Ecological Systems. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. 1986. “Adaptive Behavior and Economic Theory.” In Hogarth, R. and Reder, M., eds., Rational Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D., Kagel, J. and Battalio, R.. 1991. “Animals Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Further Experimental Results.” Economic Journal 101 (408): 1067–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, E. 1997. Microeconomics, 9th ed.New York: Norton.Google Scholar
McDonough, T. 1998. “A Million of the Irish Toilers: Marxian Perspectives on the Great Irish Famine.” Review of Radical Political Economics 30 (3): 56–63.Google Scholar
McDonough, T. and Eisenhauer, J.. 1995. “Sir Robert Giffen and the Great Potato Famine: A Discussion of the Role of a Legend in Neoclassical Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues 29 (3): 747–59.Google Scholar
McFarland, D. and Houston, A.. 1981. Quantitative Ethology: The State Space Approach. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1994. “The Realms of the Natural.” In Mirowski, Philip, ed., Natural Images in Economic Thought: “Markets Read in Tooth and Claw.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, P. and Tustin, D.. 1992. “The Perception and Efficiency of Labour Supply Choices by Pigeons.” Economic Journal 102 (414): 1134–48.Google Scholar
O'Grada, C. 1994. Ireland: A New Economic History 1780–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierce, G. and Ollason, J.. 1987. “Eight Reasons Why Optimal Foraging Theory is a Complete Waste of Time.” Oikos 49 (1): 111–17.Google Scholar
Prager, J. 1993. Applied Microeconomics: An Intermediate Text. New York: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H. 1980. “Economics and Behavioral Psychology.” In Staddon, J., ed., Limits to Action: The Allocation of Individual Behavior. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H., Battalio, R., Kagel, J., Green, L.. 1981. “Maximization Theory in Behavioral Psychology.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (3): 371–417.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H., Green, L., Kagel, J., and Battalio, R.. 1976. “Economic Demand Theory and Psychological Studies of Choice.” In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H., Kagel, J., and Battalio, R.. 1980. “Substitutability in Time Allocation.” Psychological Review 87 (4): 355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapport, D. and Turner, J.. 1977. “Economic Models in Ecology.” Science 195 (01 28): 367–73.Google Scholar
Rose, S. 1997. Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. and Nordhaus, W.. 1985. Economics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Silberberg, A., Warren-Boulton, F., and Asano, T.. 1987. “Inferior-Good and Giffen-Good Effects in Monkey Choice Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 13 (3): 292–301.Google Scholar
Simon, Herb. 1995. “Comment on Kagel.” In Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., eds., Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 1978. “Optimization Theory in Evolution.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 9 (9): 31–56.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. and Krebs, J.. 1986. Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. 1947. “Notes on the History of the Giffen Paradox.” Journal of Political Economy 55 (2): 152–56.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. 1971. “The Coal Tit as Careful Shopper.” The American Naturalist 105 (941): 77–80.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. 1979. “Sociobiology and Economics.” Atlantic Economic Journal 7 (09): 1–10.Google Scholar
Witt, U. 1991. “Economics, Sociobiology, and Behavioral Psychology on Preferences.” Journal of Economic Psychology 12 (4): 557–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar