How Falsifiable Is Collective Rationality?

Anyck Dauphin, B. Fortin, G. Lacroix
{"title":"How Falsifiable Is Collective Rationality?","authors":"Anyck Dauphin, B. Fortin, G. Lacroix","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3175379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Collective rationality is seldom if ever rejected in the literature, raising doubt about its falsifiability. We show that the standard approach to test the collective model with distribution factors may yield misleading inference. We develop a new test procedure to assess its validity. Our approach extends to households that potentially include more than two decision-makers (e.g., polygamous households, adult children). We provide a brief and informal meta-analysis that suggests that much of the evidence in favour of collective rationality in the empirical literature appears to be inconsistent with our test. We illustrate the latter using data from a survey we have conducted in Burkina Faso. Collective rationality within monogamous households is not rejected using the standard testing procedure while it is clearly rejected using our proposed test procedure. Furthermore, our test also rejects collective rationality for bigamou households. We conclude that the household efficiency does yield empirically falsifiable restrictions despite being scarcely rejected in the literature.","PeriodicalId":130325,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Household (Topic)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Household (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collective rationality is seldom if ever rejected in the literature, raising doubt about its falsifiability. We show that the standard approach to test the collective model with distribution factors may yield misleading inference. We develop a new test procedure to assess its validity. Our approach extends to households that potentially include more than two decision-makers (e.g., polygamous households, adult children). We provide a brief and informal meta-analysis that suggests that much of the evidence in favour of collective rationality in the empirical literature appears to be inconsistent with our test. We illustrate the latter using data from a survey we have conducted in Burkina Faso. Collective rationality within monogamous households is not rejected using the standard testing procedure while it is clearly rejected using our proposed test procedure. Furthermore, our test also rejects collective rationality for bigamou households. We conclude that the household efficiency does yield empirically falsifiable restrictions despite being scarcely rejected in the literature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
集体理性有多可证伪?
集体理性在文献中很少被拒绝,这引起了对其可证伪性的怀疑。我们证明了用分布因子检验集体模型的标准方法可能会产生误导性的推断。我们开发了一个新的测试程序来评估其有效性。我们的方法扩展到可能包含两个以上决策者的家庭(例如,一夫多妻家庭,成年子女)。我们提供了一个简短而非正式的元分析,表明实证文献中支持集体理性的证据似乎与我们的测试不一致。我们用我们在布基纳法索进行的一项调查的数据来说明后者。在一夫一妻制家庭中的集体理性没有被拒绝使用标准的测试程序,但它显然被拒绝使用我们提出的测试程序。此外,我们的检验也否定了重婚家庭的集体理性。我们得出的结论是,尽管在文献中几乎没有被拒绝,但家庭效率确实产生了经验上可证伪的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Financial Restitution Gap in Consumer Finance: Insights from Complaints Filed with the CFPB Does Additional Mandatory Reporting Alter Charity or Donor Behavior? Examining the 2006 Pension Protection Act Entitled to Leave: The impact of Unemployment Insurance Eligibility on Employment Duration and Job Quality Economic Incentives Surrounding Fertility: Evidence from Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend The Equilibrium and Spillover Effects of Early Retirement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1