Mauss’s Gift Theory and the Edgeworth Box Diagram

Öz

In this study, the gift cycle of archaic societies is tried to be explained with the Edgeworth box diagram. The main objective of the study is to investigate whether the “giving, receiving, reciprocating” behavior works in a similar way in today’s societies, based on the gift mechanism seen in archaic societies. For this purpose, Francis Ysidro Edgeworth’s “Mathematical Psychics: An Essay of the Application of Mathematics to Moral Sciences”, one of the important works of economics, and Marcel Mauss’s “The Gift”, one of the leading works of social anthropology, are discussed with their common aspects. Mauss’s gift theory offers the opportunity to understand human behavior on exchange or trade. A significant part of the economic elements in the Gift system seen in archaic societies is similar to today’s societies. Although gift-giving is not simultaneous, it is consistent with the barter system if it takes place within the framework of all its rules. The Edgeworth box diagram provides a simple model for reciprocal exchange. In the article, the diagram is used to illustrate how the agents can reach equilibrium in their preferences. It also provides an insight into loss aversion, decision making under uncertainty, social preferences and reciprocity in the gift cycle from a behavioral economics perspective. JEL Classification : D01 , D64 , D91

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Behavioral economics
• Mauss’s gift theory
• Edgeworth box diagram

Kaynakça

1. Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. F. (2007). Behavioral economics. İn U. Maki (Ed.) Handbook of the Phllosophy of Science: Phllosophy of Economic (pp. 641-690), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=957148 google scholar
2. Ansa Eceiza, M. M., & Gómez García, F. (2019). William Stanley Jevons and Francis Ysidro Edgeworth: Two pioneers of happiness economics, Iberian Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 6(2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.5209/ijhe.66195. google scholar
3. Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam Smith, Behavioral Economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3): 131-145.10.1257/089533005774357897. google scholar
4. Baujard, A. (2013). Utilitarianism and anti-utilitarianism. GATE Working Paper No. 1332, http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2357441. google scholar
5. Beaulier, S. A., & Prychitko, D. L. (2010). The Traders’ Cross: İdentifying Traders’ surpluses in the traditional Edgeworth exchange diagram, The Journal of Economlc Educatlon, 41(1), 54-62. DOİ: 10.1080/00220480903382248 google scholar
6. Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision making, Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336-372. https://doi.Org/l0.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010 google scholar
7. Bentham, J. (2021). Yasamanın İlkelerl ( B. Asal, Çev.). İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık. google scholar
8. Browning, E. K., & Zupan, M. (2014). Mlkro lktlsat, teorl ve uygulamalar. (R. Kök, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Yayınevi. google scholar

9. Caille, A. (2007). Faydacı aklın eleştirisi (D. Çetinkasap, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları. google scholar
10. Camerer. C. (1999). Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics, Proceedlngs of the Natlonal Academy Sclences, 96(19), 10575-10577. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.19.10575 google scholar
11. Camerer, C. F. & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, Present, and Future. İn C. F. Camerer, F. G. Loewenstein & M. Rabin (Eds.). Advances in Behavioral Economics (pp. 3-51). Princeton, University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4j8j google scholar
12. Colander, D. (2007). Edgeworth’s hedonimeter and the quest to measure utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 215-226. DOİ: https://doi.org.10.1257/jep.21.2.215 google scholar
13. Creedy, J. (1979). Edgeworth’s contribution to the theory of exchange. Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 26(2), 163-181. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1979.tb00541.x google scholar
14. Dolfsma, W., Eijk, R. & Jolink, A. (2009). On a source of social capital: Gift exchange [Journal of Business Ethics. 89(3), 315-329. https:// psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10551-008-0002-z] google scholar
15. Douglas, M. (2002). Foreword, Mauss the gift. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library. https://files.libcom.org/files/Mauss%20-%20The% 20Gift.pdf. google scholar
16. Drakopoulos, S. A. (2015). The physics scientific ideal in the works of Edgeworth and Fisher. İn: G. Bitros, N. Kyriazis (Eds.) Essays in Contemporary Economics. (pp. 31-43). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10043-2\_3. google scholar
17. Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history google scholar
18. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: an essay on the application of mathematics to moral science. London: C. Kegan Paul & CO. https://historyofeconomicthought.mcmaster.ca/edgeworth/mathpsychics.pdf google scholar
19. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Theories of fairness and reciprocity: Evidence and economic applications. In M. Dewatripont, L. Hansen, & S. Turnovsky (Eds.). Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Eighth World Congress (Econometric Society Monographs, pp. 208-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610240.008 google scholar
20. Gill, A. & Thomas, M. (2023). The dynamic efficiency of gifting. Journal of Institutional Economics, 19(1), 70-85. doi:10.1017/S1744137422000200 google scholar
21. Heins, V. M., Unrau, C., & Avram, K. (2018). Gift-giving and reciprocity in global society: Introducing Marcel Mauss in international studies. Journal of International Political Theory, 14(2), 126-144. doi: 10.1177/1755088218757807 google scholar
22. Hume, D. (2021). İnsanın anlama yetisi üzerine bir soruşturma (F. B. Aydar, Çev.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
23. Humphrey, T. (1996). The early history of the box diagram. FRB Richmond Economic Quarterly, 82 (1), 37-75. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2125906 google scholar
24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185 google scholar
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, vaLues, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066 X.39.4.341 google scholar
26. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 14491475. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132137 google scholar
27. Kahneman, D. (2022). Hızlı ve yavaş düşünme (O. Ç. Deniztekin, F. N. Deniztekin, Çev.). Varlık Yayınları. google scholar
28. Kant, I. (2022). Etik üzerine dersler (O. Özügül, Çev.). Fol Kitap. google scholar
29. Kazgan, G. (2021). İktisadi düşünce, politik iktisadın evrimi. Remzi Kitabevi. google scholar
30. Kunze, O., & Schlatterer, F. (2018). The Edgeworth cube: An economic model for social peace. International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), 7(2), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABE.2018040103 google scholar
31. Lee, Y. (2021). Behavioral economicst theory, Masters of deviations, irrationalities, and biases. In R. Appel-Meulenbroek & V. Danivska (Eds.). A Handbook of Theories on Designing Alignment Between People and the Office Environment, (pp. 209-221). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003128830 google scholar
32. Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J.D. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 647-72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.59.103006.093710. [PMID: 17883335.] google scholar
33. Mathews, M. (2017). Gift giving, reciprocity and the creation of trust. Journal of Trust Research, 7(1), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1286597 google scholar
34. Mauss, M. (2018). Armağan üzerine deneme. (N. Özyıldırım, Çev.). Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım. google scholar
35. Mill, J. S. (2017). Faydacılık (S. Aktuyun, Çev.). Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım. google scholar
36. Neumarker, B. (2007). Neuroeconomics and the economic Logic of behavior. Analyse & Kritik, 29(i), 60-85. doi:10.1515/auk-2007-0105 google scholar
37. Özüşen, B., & Kösekahyaoğlu, L. (2023). Davranışsal iktisat perspektifinden armağan teorisi çerçevesinde ticaret ve barış. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 43, 395-420. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2023.43.2.0048 google scholar
38. PavLov, Y. P. (2013, October). Preferences, utiLity, and generaL equiLibrium anaLysis in the Edgeworth Box. InternationaL Conference "Automatics and Informatics”2013, At Sofia, BuLgaria. google scholar
39. Pindyck, R. S. RubinfeLd, D. L. (2014). Mikroiktisat (E. DeLiktaş & M. Karadağ, Çev. Ed.). PaLme YayıncıLık. google scholar
40. RameL, F. (2018). How to understand internationaL society differentLy: Mauss and the chains of reciprocity. Journal of International Political Theory, 14(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217751514 google scholar
41. Reed, D.D., Niileksela, C.R., & KapLan, B. A. (2013). BehavioraL economics: a tutorial for behavior analysts in practice. Behavioral Analysis in Practice, 6(1):34-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391790. google scholar
42. Robson, S. E., Repetto, L., Gountouna, V. E., & Nicodemus, K. K. (2020). A review of neuroeconomics gamepLay in psychiatric disorders. Molecular Psychiatry, 25(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0405-5 google scholar
43. Rosen, F. (2003). CLassical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. RoutLedge. https://www.utiLitarianism.com/cLassicaL-utiLitarianism.pdf google scholar
44. Rousseau, J. J. (2016). Toplum sözleşmesi ya da siyaset hukuku ilkeleri (İ. Yerguz, Çev.). Ankara: Say Yayınları. google scholar
45. Sahlins, M. (2010). Taş devri ekonomisi (Ş. Özgün, Çev.). bgst yayınları. google scholar
46. Samuels, W.J. (1992). Edgeworth’s mathematicaL psychics: A CentenniaL notice. In: Essays in the History of Mainstream Political Economy (pp.167-175). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12266-0_9 google scholar
47. Simon, H. A. (1956). RationaL choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0042769 google scholar
48. Smith, A. (2018). Ahlaki duygular kuramı (D. Kızılay, Çev.). Pinhan Yayıncılık google scholar
49. Smith, A. (2020). Milletlerin zenginliği doğası ve nedenleri üzerine bir inceleme (M. Acar, Çev.) Liberus Kitap. google scholar
50. Solek, A. (2014). BehavioraL economics approaches to pubLic poLicy. Journal of International Studies, 7, 33-45. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-2/3. google scholar
51. Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106 (7), 1577-1600. https://doi.org/10. 1257/aer.106.7.1577 google scholar
52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 google scholar
53. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskLess choice: A reference-dependent modeL;. The Quarterly Journal of Econom-ics, 106 (4), 1039-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956 google scholar
54. Uzawa, H. (1962). On the stability of Edgeworth’s barter process. International Economic Review, 3(2), 218-232. doi:10.2307/2525426 google scholar
55. VinoLo, S. (2015). Epistemologîa de La reciprocidad. Lo que no pueden mostrar Las reLaciones sociaLes. Analecta polıtica, 5(8), 97-115. https://revistas.upb.edu.co/index.php/anaLecta/articLe/view/2485 google scholar
56. Weber, F. (2018). Sunuş, içinde Armağan üzerine deneme (N. Özyıldırım, Çev.), s. 11- 64. Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım. google scholar