Teschl

Publications

An Interview with Nick BaigentBook chapterConstanze Binder, Miriam Teschl et Yongsheng Xu, In: Individual and Collective Choice and Social Welfare: Essays in Honor of Nick Baigent, Constanze Binder, Giulio Codognato, Miriam Teschl et Yongsheng Xu (Eds.), 2015-05, pp. 365-377, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015

The interview was conducted by Constanze Binder (CB) Miriam Teschl (MT) and Yongsheng Xu (YX) via email over a period of a few weeks in the Summer/Fall of 2014.

Asymmetric paternalism for economistsJournal articleMiriam Teschl, Journal of Economic Methodology, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 211-214, 2013

-

Review of Against Injustice: The New Economics of Amartya Sen, ed by R. Gotoh & P. Dumouchel. CUP, 2009. - Amartya Sen, ed by C. Morris. CUP, 2010. - Measuring Justice: primary goods and capabilities, ed by H. Brighouse & I. Robeyns. CUP, 2010.Journal articleMiriam Teschl, Economics & Philosophy, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp. 275-287, 2012

Against Injustice: The New Economies of Amartya Sen, edited by Reiko Gotoh and Paul Dumouchel. Cambridge University Press, 2009, x + 317 pages.
Amartya Sen, edited by Christopher Morris. Cambridge University Press, 2010, xvi + 224 pages.
Measuring Justice: primary goods and capabilities, edited by Harry Brighouse and Ingrid Robeyns. Cambridge University Press, 2010, ix + 257 pages.

In little more than a year, three new books on Amartya Sen and his ideas have been published. After all that has been written already on Sen, one may wonder if that is not too much. As to these three books - all edited volumes containing a selection of papers of well-known researchers in the respective fields - the overall answer clearly is no. Each volume has different strengths, which I will try to highlight below. However, a review of three books necessarily involves concentrating on a limited set of contributions only, and the selection reflects in part my personal interests.

Review of John B. Davis's Individuals and identity in economics. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2011, 270pp.Journal articleMiriam Teschl, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 74-82, 2011

-

“Is it rational to deceive?”. Deception in Markets: An Economic Analysis, Caroline Gerschlager (ed.). New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005Journal articleMiriam Teschl, Revue de Philosophie Economique / Review of Economic Philosophy, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp. 141-145, 2010

-

Rationality and emotionsJournal articleAlan Kirman, Pierre Livet et Miriam Teschl, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 365, Issue 1538, pp. 215-219, 2010

-

Selfish or selfless? The role of empathy in economicsJournal articleAlan Kirman et Miriam Teschl, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 365, Issue 1538, pp. 303-317, 2010

Empathy is a longstanding issue in economics, especially for welfare economics, but one which has faded from the scene in recent years. However, with the rise of neuroeconomics, there is now a renewed interest in this subject. Some economists have even gone so far as to suggest that neuroscientific experiments reveal heterogeneous empathy levels across individuals. If this were the case, this would be in line with economists' usual assumption of stable and given preferences and would greatly facilitate the study of prosocial behaviour with which empathy is often associated. After reviewing some neuroscientific psychological and neuroeconomic evidence on empathy, we will, however, criticize the notion of a given empathy distribution in the population by referring to recent experiments on a public goods game that suggest that, on the contrary, the degree of empathy that individuals exhibit is very much dependent on context and social interaction.

Markets, Governance and Human DevelopmentJournal articleP. B. Anand, Des Gasper et Miriam Teschl, Revue de Philosophie Economique / Review of Economic Philosophy, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 3-10, 2010

-

Do markets foster selfishness?Journal articleAlan Kirman et Miriam Teschl, Revue de Philosophie Economique / Review of Economic Philosophy, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 113-140, 2010

RésuméL’agent économique est souvent par définition considéré comme un pur égoïste. Plus encore, son utilité est définie sur ce qu’il consomme et elle est considérée comme monotone – ce que nous appelons être « égoïste ». Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons à l’hypothèse selon laquelle le marché conduit les individus à être égoïstes. Nous avançons tout d’abord que la théorie économique n’est pas limitée à considérer des agents économiques égoïstes mais qui peuvent également faire des choix fondés sur d’autres motivations, par exemple des agents qui ont des préférences altruistes envers les autres. Dans une deuxième partie de cet article, nous discutons plusieurs expériences en économie qui traitent des conditions dans lesquelles les préférences altruistes peuvent se manifester. Dans ce contexte, nous discutons en particulier trois aspects: la concurrence, la complétude des contrats et la différence entre l’argent gagnée et l’argent inattendue (ou « windfall money »). Ces trois facteurs, sous des circonstances particulières, semblent contribuer à l’observation de comportements plus égoïstes. Nous concluons que le fait de gagner de l’argent par sa propre activité et la responsabilité jouent un rôle spécifique dans la prévalence des comportement égoistes.

What does it mean to be decentered?Journal articleMiriam Teschl, Review of Social Economy, Volume 65, Issue 2, pp. 195-201, 2007