Should the idea of economic man—the amoral and self-interested Homo economicus—determine how we expect people to respond to monetary rewards, punishments, and other incentives? Samuel Bowles answers...

Buy Now From Amazon

Should the idea of economic man—the amoral and self-interested Homo economicus—determine how we expect people to respond to monetary rewards, punishments, and other incentives? Samuel Bowles answers with a resounding “no.” Policies that follow from this paradigm, he shows, may “crowd out” ethical and generous motives and thus backfire.
 
But incentives per se are not really the culprit. Bowles shows that crowding out occurs when the message conveyed by fines and rewards is that self-interest is expected, that the employer thinks the workforce is lazy, or that the citizen cannot otherwise be trusted to contribute to the public good. Using historical and recent case studies as well as behavioral experiments, Bowles shows how well-designed incentives can crowd in the civic motives on which good governance depends.


Similar Products

After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and InequalitySuccess and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of MeritocracyGlobal InequalityThe Great ConvergenceThe Seven Pillars of Statistical WisdomBourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the WorldDemocracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior)Rethinking Capitalism: Economics and Policy for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth (Political Quarterly Monograph Series)