![]() |
CiteULike | ![]() |
eenauk's CiteULike | ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Log in | ![]() |
Evolutionary game theory and the normative theory of institutional design: Binmore and behavioral economicsby: Don Ross
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
Posting History
AbstractIn this article, I critically respond to Herbert Gintis's criticisms of the behavioral-economic foundations of Ken Binmore's game-theoretic theory of justice. Gintis, I argue, fails to take full account of the normative requirements Binmore sets for his account, and also ignores what I call the scale-relativity' considerations built into Binmore's approach to modeling human evolution. Paul Seabright's criticism of Binmore, I note, repeats these oversights. In the course of answering Gintis's and Seabright's objections, I clarify and extend Binmore's theory in a number of respects, integrating it with Kim Sterelny's and Don Ross's recent (respective) work on the evolution of people as cultural entities. The account also yields a novel basis for choosing between socialism (broadly conceived) and what Binmore calls whiggery' as normative political programs. 10.1177/1470594X06060619
BibTeX record
RIS record