000			03170nam a2200253 4500
001			th499
003			ISI Library, Kolkata
005			20240918153659.0
008			210202b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aISI Library _bEnglish
082	0	4	_223 _a330.015 _bK85
100	1		_aKothari, Priyanka _eauthor
245	1	0	_aEssays on behavioral industrial organization and welfare/ _cPriyanka Kothari
260			_aNew Delhi: _bIndian Statistical Institute, _c2020
300			_aix, 138 pages,
502			_aThesis (Ph.D.) - Indian Statistical Institute, 2020
504			_aIncludes bibliography
505	0		_aIntroduction -- Monopoly and the other: Reference-dependence in vertically differentiated markets -- Fairness is flexible: A study of competing focal points -- Happiness in the finite: Oligopoly maximizes welfare
508			_aGuided by Prof. Prabal Roy Chowdhury
520			_aMany traits of economic agents are well studied and understood by psychologists that are yet to be captured by economic theory. This thesis, in the field of behavioral economics, is yet another attempt at unifying the different approaches of the two well-established disciplines - we ask what does economics predict of the behavior of economic agents ... once the psychology behind their decisions is accounted for. In a nutshell, this thesis is about the implications of choice-making among available alternatives. We begin with the idea that an economic agent only derives satisfaction from what he consumes without worrying at all (let alone too much) about what he does not. This idea has been contested by celebrated psychologists like Barry Schwartz who argue that if what is bought falls below expectations, then the nagging thought about a potentially better alternative that was not purchased, takes away from the utility from consuming/using what was bought. This idea is being researched by economists, who also found that consumer benchmark is context-dependent. The use of default options (Park et al, 2000, and Johnson et al, 2002), historical values (Klein and Oglethorpe, 1987), expectations (Song, 2012), and anchoring (Chapman and Johnson, 1999 and Strack and Mussweiler, 1997) by consumer are sometimes to simplify their decision making process. The effect of these comparisons is not limited to the consumer choices, for they also influence firms' strategic decisions (Zhou, 2011; Heidhues and Kőszegi, 2005; Heidhues and Kőszegi, 2008 and Spiegler, 2012). In fact, with durable goods the negative effect due to comparison is magnified - every time a commodity is used, an agent is reminded that he could have made a better choice. While we take up the implications of this discussion more elaborately in the final chapter of this thesis (Chapter 4) in a welfare-framework, for now it is important to note that consumers frequently compare what they buy with what they do not - particularly when there are reasons to believe that the latter is better. This is the central theme of Chapter 2 of the thesis.
650		4	_aBehavioral Economics
856			_yFull text _uhttp://dspace.isical.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/10263/7107
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c428066 _d428066