Back to results

Virginia Tech

Methodological Foundations for Bounded Rationality as a Primary Framework

Abstract

dc:description.abstract

Experimental observations have shown that economic agents behave in ways different from the maximization of any utility function. Herbert Simon sought to deal with this by positing that individuals do not maximize, but rather "satisfice." This was a radical departure from the traditional economic framework, and one that still has not been adequately formalized. But Simon's suggestion is only the smallest part of what is needed for a theory that reflects the actual behavior. For instance, Simon's framework cannot deal with the observation that the act of choice changes the chooser. This dissertation is further developing Simon's original ideas through embracing John Dewey's transactional thinking to attain an adequate theory of economic choice that accounts for boundedly rational agents. I clarify that substantive rationality and bounded (procedural) rationality share the same basic utilitarian assumption of predetermined goals. In terms of a Deweyan (transactional) analysis, the idea of utilitarian "optimization" ultimately guides and constrains both theories. But empirical study of choice behavior and the behavior of subjects in experimental laboratories, both indicate that neither substantive nor procedural rationality can effectively account for actual economic choices. I emphasize the importance of treating bounded rationality without reference to the rational framework. To me, bounded rationality implies a realistic picture of behavior, which is associated with emerging goals and not ones that exist prior to the making of a choice. I consider uncertainty as a normal characteristic of the situation, which in turn allows consideration of acting based on inconsistent information, just as people actually do. The basis of a systematic approach to behavior that can capture inconsistency is developed by Tom Burke. He mathematizes Dewey's logic. He allows for impossible worlds in the set of states. Thus, not only can the initial state space hold inconsistent states, the information set can include mutually inconsistent elements. So the current neoclassical paradigm resembles the representative realism, but is there any good reason why we should accept this methodology as economists? Whatever one's ultimate metaphysics and epistemology, I want to show that an alternative approach to economic decision-making may prove highly useful in theory and practice.

Degree

thesis:*
Name thesis:degree_name
Ph. D.
Level thesis:degree_level
doctoral
Discipline thesis:degree_discipline
Economics
Department dc:contributor.department
Economics
Grantor dc:publisher
Virginia Tech
Year dc:date.issued
2002

Author and committee

dc:creator, dc:contributor.*
Author dc:creator
  • Modarres-Mousavi, Shabnam
Chair dc:contributor.committeechair
  • Tideman, Nicolaus
Committee members dc:contributor.committeemember
  • Spanos, Aris
  • Nakamoto, Kent
  • Garrison, James W.
  • Eckel, Catherine C.

Subjects

dc:subject × 6

Rights

dc:rights
Statement dc:rights
  • In Copyright

Identifiers

dc:identifier.*
Dc Identifier Other
etd-12222002-183717
OAI identifier oai:identifier
oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/30225

Chain of custody

source
Harvested from
Virginia Tech
Base URL
vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request
Last updated
2026-07-22
Source record
OAI-PMH GetRecord
citation

Modarres-Mousavi, Shabnam. Methodological Foundations for Bounded Rationality as a Primary Framework. doctoral thesis, Virginia Tech, 2002. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/30225