Rethinking Homo Economicus: An Integrated Critique from Feminist and Behavioral Economics

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: Toplumsal Cinsiyet Özel Sayısı, 156 - 167, 27.09.2025

Duygu Çeri

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1719470

Abstract

This article examines the foundational critique of homo economicus by integrating the perspectives of feminist and behavioral economics. Both schools challenge the neoclassical assumptions of instrumental rationality and methodological individualism by highlighting the socially embedded and psychologically complex nature of real economic agents. Feminist economics critiques the gender-blind, androcentric framing of economic theory, arguing that observed behavioral differences between men and women are shaped by gendered socialization and institutional structures, rather than innate characteristics. Behavioral economics, in turn, demonstrates that individuals deviate from pure rationality due to cognitive biases, social norms, and emotional factors. Despite differing theoretical origins, both approaches converge in rejecting the reductionist and ahistorical depiction of economic behavior in neoclassical models. This study examines how a synthesis of feminist and behavioral critiques can provide a more comprehensive and empirically grounded understanding of economic decision-making. It argues that incorporating the social construction of preferences and the contextual nature of behavior is essential for developing realistic and humane economic theories. Ultimately, the article contributes to a broader methodological rethinking of economics that centers on human complexity, interdependence, and social context.

Keywords

Homo Economicus , Instrumental Rationality , Methodological Individualism , Feminist Economics , Behavioral Economics

Homo Economicus'u Yeniden Düşünmek: Feminist ve Davranışsal İktisatın Bütünleşik Eleştirisi

Abstract

Bu makale, feminist ve davranışsal iktisat perspektiflerini birleştirerek homo economicus kavramına yönelik temel eleştirileri incelemektedir. Her iki okul da gerçek ekonomik eyleyenlerin sosyal olarak yerleşik ve psikolojik olarak karmaşık doğasını vurgulayarak, araçsal rasyonalite ve metodolojik bireycilik gibi neoklasik varsayımlara meydan okumaktadır. Feminist iktisat, ekonomik teorinin cinsiyet körü ve erkek merkezli çerçevesini eleştirerek, erkekler ve kadınlar arasında gözlemlenen davranış farklılıklarının doğuştan gelen özelliklerden ziyade cinsiyete dayalı sosyalleşme ve kurumsal yapılar tarafından şekillendirildiğini savunmaktadır. Davranışsal iktisat ise, bireylerin bilişsel yanlılıklar, sosyal normlar ve duygusal faktörler nedeniyle saf rasyonellikten saptığını gösterir. Teorik kökenleri farklı olsa da her iki yaklaşım da neoklasik modellerde ekonomik davranışın indirgemeci ve tarihsel olmayan tasvirini reddetme konusunda birleşmektedir. Bu çalışma, feminist ve davranışsal eleştirilerin sentezinin ekonomik karar verme sürecine nasıl daha kapsamlı ve ampirik temelli bir anlayış sağlayabileceğini incelemektedir. Tercihlerin sosyal inşası ve davranışların bağlamsal doğasının dahil edilmesinin, gerçekçi ve insani ekonomi teorileri geliştirmek için gerekli olduğunu savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu makale, insanın karmaşıklığını, karşılıklı bağımlılığını ve sosyal bağlamını merkeze alan, ekonominin metodolojik olarak daha geniş bir şekilde yeniden düşünülmesine katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Homo Economicus , Araçsal Rasyonalite , Metodolojik Bireycilik , Feminist İktisat , Davranışsal İktisat

References

• Aguiar, F., Brañas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Jimenez, N., & Miller, L. M. (2009). Are women expected to be more generous? Experimental Economics, 12(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9199-z
• Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Behavioral Economics. U. Mäki (Ed.), Handbook of philosophy of economics (641–690). North-Holland.
• Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: Hidden forces that shapes our decisions. Harper Collins Books.
• Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam Smith, behavioral economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 131-145.
• Austen, S. (2015). Feminist economics for behavioral economists. Working Papers: The Centre for Research in Applied Economics (CRAE) (Issue February).
• Barker, D. K. (1999). Neoclassical economics. J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (570–577). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.11288860.12
• Boettke, P. (2023). Methodological individualism and the Austrian School of Economics. N. Bulle & F. Di Iorio (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of methodological individualism: Volume I (Vol. 1, 3–17). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978303141508-1
• Booij, A. S., & van Praag, B. M. S. (2009). A simultaneous approach to the estimation of risk aversion and the subjective time discount rate. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(1), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.01.005
• Charness, G., & Genicot, G. (2009). Informal risk sharing in an infinite-horizon experiment. The Economic Journal, 119(537), 796–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02248.x
• Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007
• Charness, G., & Rustichini, A. (2011). Gender differences in cooperation with group membership. Games and Economic Behavior, 72(1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2010.07.006
• Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. R. P. Charles & L. S. Vernon (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (509–519). North-Holland.
• England, P. (2003). Separative and soluble selves: Dichotomous thinking in economics. M. Ferber & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man (33–60). The University of Chicago Press.
• England, P. (1993). The seperative self: Androcentric bias neoclassical assumptions. M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Beyond economic man: Feminist theory and economics (37–53). The University of Chicago Press.
• Ferber, M., & Nelson, J. A. (2003). Introduction: Beyond economic man, ten years later. M. A. Ferber & J. A. Nelson (Eds.), Feminist economics today: Beyond economic man (1–33). The University of Chicago Press.
• Folbre, N. (1994). Who pays for the kids? Gender andthe structures constraint. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203168295
• Folbre, N. (1995). “Holding hands at midnight”: The paradox of caring labor. Feminist Economics, 1(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042215
• Geiger, N. (2017). The rise of behavioral economics: A quantitative assessment. Social Science History, 41(3), 555–583.
• Grapard, U. (1995). Robinson Crusoe: The quintessential economic man? Feminist Economics, 1(1), 33–52.
• Grapard, U. (1999). Methodology. J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (544–555). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Güth, W., Schmidt, C., & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab - A newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game. The Economic Journal, 117(518), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02025.x
• Heijdra, B. J., Lowenberg, A. D., & Mallick, R. J. (1988). Marxism, methodological individualism, and the new institutional economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 144(2), 296–317.
• Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2004). Foundations of human sociality. Oxford University Press.
• Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2002). Are peasants risk-adverse decision makers?. Current Anthropology, 43, 172–181.
• Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780701394094
• Işık, E. (2022). Adam-akım iktisadın öznesi “homoeconomicus”u toplumsal cinsiyet gözlüğü ile okumak. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 6(2), 396–421. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1117096
• Jennings, A. (1999). Dualisms. J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (142–153). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Jevons, W. S. (n.d.). Theory of political economy (Second Edition). MacMillan and Co.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986a). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986b). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. The Journal of Business, 59(S4), S285. https://doi.org/10.1086/296367
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=econosoc.%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org
• Katona, G. (1951). Psychological analysis of economic behavior. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/bc-jsp/content/jsp/images/content/library/pdf/J1_Map8_Missouri_web.pdf
• Kırmızıaltın, E. (2021). Davranışsal iktisat kısa bir giriş: Kurucu düşünürler. Heretik Yayınları.
• Kırmızıaltın, E. (2021). Davranışsal iktisat. A. A. Eren & E. Kırmızıaltın (Eds.), İktisat sosyolojisi kurucu düşünürler ve iktisat okulları özelinde bir çalışma (2nd Ed., 325–377). Heretik Yayınları.
• Koumakhov, R., & Daoud, A. (2021). Decisions and structures: A dialogue between Herbert Simon and critical realists. British Journal of Management, 32(4), 1404–1420. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12439
• Menger, C. (n.d.). Principles of economics. J. Dingwall & B. F. Hoselitz (Eds.). the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• Nagatsu, M. (2015). History of Behavioral Economics. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, Volume 2 (443–449). Elsevier, Oxford.
• Nelson, J. A. (1995). Feminism and economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.2.131
• Nelson, J. A. (1996). Feminism, objectivity and economics. Feminism, objectivity and economics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555007
• Nelson, J. A. (1992). Gender, metaphor, and the definition of economics. Economics and Philosophy, 8(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026626710000050X
• Nelson, J. A. (1999). Economic man. J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (284–289). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
• Nelson, J. A. (2013). Not-so-strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Working Paper 2013-06. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1057609
• Nelson, J. A. (2015). Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12069
• Power, M. (2004). Social provisioning as a starting point for feminist economics. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354570042000267608
• Rutherford, M. (1994). Institutional economics: The old and the new institutionalism. Cambridge University Press.
• Savage, I. R. (1954). The foundations of statistics. John Wiley and Sons.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1908). Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie. Duncker und Humblot.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1909). On the concept of social value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 23(2), 213–232.
• Sent, E. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36(4), 735–760.
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. John Wiley and Sons.
• Simon, H. A. (1992). Methodological foundations of economics. J. L. Auspitz, W. W. Gasparski, M. K. Mlicki & K. Szaniawski (Eds.), Praxiologies and the philosophy of economics (129–148). NJ: Transactions Publishers.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Methodological Individualism. (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/methodological-individualism/
• Strassmann, D. (1999). Feminist economics. J. Peterson & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (360–373). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973939.feminist.economics
• Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
• Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.
• Thaler, R. H. (2016). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biaes. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90052-1
• Udéhn, L. (2001). Methodological individualism. Routledge.
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstein, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
• Wärneryd, K.-E. (1982). The life and work of George Katona. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(82)90008-3
• Weber, R., & Dawes, R. (2005). Behavioral economics. N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd Ed., 90–109). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105079
• Weirich, P. (2004). Economic rationality. A. R. Mele & P. Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of rationality. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195145397.003.0020
• White, V. M. (1994). The moment of Richard Jennings: The production of Jevons’s marginalist economic agent. Natural Images in Economic Thought: “Markets Read in Tooth and Claw" (197–230). Cambridge University Press.