Topic: Modeling Homo Sapiens Using the Homo Economicus and Homo Sociologicus Models
In this essay, I will explain the key aspects of the homo economicus model as well as the homo sociologicus model. Specifically, I will be highlighting Gary S. Becker’s version of the homo economicus model known as the rational choice model. Secondly, I will highlight the differences between the homo economicus and sociologicus models. Next, I will illustrate that the homo economicus and homo sociologicus models are unable to individually explain human behavior in full. Lastly, I will conclude that when used in conjunction, the two are most useful in creating a model of homo sapiens.
In order to understand the differences between the homo economicus and homo sociologicus model, it is imperative to understand the two models individually. Moreover, later in the essay, the two models will be discussed in combination, so a basic understanding of each is vital. The homo economicus model features optimal behavior and the maximization of subjective utility. Subjectivism involves an agent making rational decisions based on the fact that their choices are optimally satisfying their desire-based objectives. Correspondingly, utility or utility theory involves the ranking of these desires. According to the preferences-based conception of utility, preferences stem from desires and beliefs. For example, let us say a man has a basket of oranges and apples. If the man chooses an apple, it is not based on the fact that eating an apple yields a higher utility, but because he prefers the act of eating apples to oranges. For the man, eating apples yields a higher utility than eating oranges. The homo economicus model is inherently consequentialist due to its outcome-based nature; it evaluates actions based on their consequences. This model also views each decision an agent makes as an independent one. The homo economicus model relies on opportunistic case-by-case maximization. In other words, utility is act-specific. An agent performs the action they’ve deemed will provide them with the most utility in that particular moment. American Economist Gary S. Becker was an advocate for the homo economicus model and believed it should be the basis for all human behavior. Becker’s model, in particular, the rational choice model, added assumptions to the homo economicus model. Becker established ideas on stable preferences, scarcity of resources, and the existence of markets as devices of coordination. These assumptions allow the homo economicus model to be better formalized and allow for more precise conclusions. For example, in Becker’s Nobel Lecture: “The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior”, he was able to use mathematical equations in order to determine how much parents influence the formation of their children’s preferences. (Becker, 405)
On the other hand, the homo sociologicus model prioritizes ideal values and norm-commitment. According to this model, an agent chooses their actions based on adherence to norms (norm-commitment) that they value (their ideal values). For example, an agent committed to doing the right thing will pay their social security tax despite there not being an immediate payoff. The following of these sorts of social norms, with or without payoff, is called commitment power. The homo sociologicus model takes into account social norms and values. In this model, they are the driving force in an agent’s actions, rather than personal preference.
It remains important to separate the homo economicus and sociologicus model so the difference is made distinct. This allows us to recognize their unique contributions and will later help us to understand why they work better in unison. The homo economicus model promotes instrumental rationality while the homo sociologicus model promotes value rationality. Instrumental rationality is when the preferences or ends are exogenously given. To put it another way, humans are guided independently of social norms. Human behavior, both as a whole and individually are explained by means-end reasoning. Value rationality, on the other hand, as used in the homo sociologicus model, is able to explain the existence of social norms and values. This model doesn’t prioritize utility and outcomes like the economicus model. Instead, it focuses on adhering to social guidelines. For example, let us use the following scenario: a man was driving in an area with a high police presence and stopped at a crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross the street. Using the homo economicus model, it could be said the man weighed the options of speeding up to cut the pedestrian off against letting the pedestrian go before his own car. The driver considered the possibility of getting ticketed at least $100 by a police officer and determined it was not worth it and lost out on 15 seconds of time to let the pedestrian cross. In this case, waiting for the pedestrian yielded a higher utility because the driver preferred to lose out on 15 seconds rather than $100 dollars. Now I will model this scenario using the homo sociologicus model. In this instance, the driver would likely place more weight on stopping for the pedestrian, because it is the law to stop for pedestrians in this area. Instead of weighing $100 dollars against the wait time, they would rely on the social institution at play, traffic laws, and place the law above the inconvenient 15 seconds of waiting. The driver in this model may have felt guilty if they had not followed the law. This is an example of commitment power. The homo economicus model does not take these sorts of social institutions into account. The use of subjective utility and consequentialism in the homo economicus model contrasts the ideal value and norm reliant aspects of the homo sociologicus model. That being said, and despite any commonalities, the two models cannot be reduced to one another.
The homo economicus model makes use of methodological individualism. This is the idea that all social phenomena can be explained by an individual agent’s behavior, that behavior being determined by individual preferences. This model asserts that agents are isolated from central social institutions such as social roles and commitments. They are instead able to choose their ends, values, and relationships entirely independent of any other variables. This is problematic because one of the main things that set homo sapiens apart from other species is their reliance on social institutions. Unlike other species, humans rely on culture rather than instinct, which involves the values and norms of a particular group. Because humans are so interconnected, it’s virtually impossible for somebody to distance themself from any and all social attachments. The homo economicus model cannot explain the universal pattern of humans adhering to norms based on intrinsic value rather than immediate payoff. In other words, the homo economicus model cannot explain the existence of social institutions. Under these circumstances, the homo economicus model alone is unable to accurately model homo sapiens. While the homo sociologicus model prioritizes social institutions, it lacks specificity. For example, there are instances in which humans lack the capacity to develop commitment power and instead act in a self-interested manner. The economicus model, on the other hand, due to its simplifying assumptions as outlined by Becker, can be easily formalized. This is important as it eliminates ambiguity and leads to more precise findings. Becker’s simplifying assumptions, as outlined earlier in the essay, make the homo economicus model more useful than the homo sociologicus model for modeling homo sapiens. However, while one may be more useful, the homo economicus model and homo sociologicus model are still best when used together.
It is important to consider that while the homo economicus model prioritizes subjective utility and consequentialism, it can bind itself to norms if this sort of adherence benefits the modeled agent in the long run. However, according to the homo economicus model, agents will only adhere to norms if they will be useful in the long run. This model still prioritizes consequences over norm commitment. Adhering to norms is merely a vessel to achieve a preferred end. This sort of thinking is called dispositional utility maximization. An example of this would be a babysitter committing to their promise to a parent of staying off their cell phone while babysitting. If the babysitter does this and keeps a closer eye on the child, the parent will see the sitter as responsible. This may, in turn, lead to increased economic and social payoff in the long run. For example, the sitter may establish a good relationship with the family and in turn receive higher wages. While it seems like the homo economicus model alone could model homo sapiens, it does not place enough emphasis on social institutions.
Generally, it is better to use both the homo economicus and sociologicus models when modeling something as complex as homo sapiens. Moreover, despite the differences between the two, there is an overlap of ideas in the homo economicus and homo sociologicus models. Methodological holism is a much more accurate depiction of human nature than the methodological individualism outlined in the homo economicus model. Methodological holism is essentially the idea that society is more than the sum of individuals within it. Holism is more representative of homo sapiens because a great deal of their behavior is based on group social institutions. Methodological holism is not eliminating the importance of the individual; it is simply taking into account the individual’s relationship to their community. In Becker’s discussion of the homo economicus model, he discusses central ideas from the homo sociologicus model. Not only that, but Becker alludes to a methodological holism ideology:
While the economic approach to behavior builds on a theory of individual choice, it is not mainly concerned with individuals. It uses theory at the micro-level as a powerful tool to derive implications at the group or macro level. Rational and individual choice is combined with assumptions about technologies and other determinants of opportunities, equilibrium in market and nonmarket situations, and laws, norms, and traditions to obtain results concerning the behavior of groups. (Becker, 402)
It seems as though Becker, an advocate for the homo economicus/rational choice model, believes that the homo economicus model is the basis of understanding human behavior, but that it should be used alongside other assumptions. It appears that Becker is advocating for methodological holism because he believes we must first understand individual choice but are meant to build upon it. Furthermore, Becker mentions the idea that individual choice should be combined with assumptions about laws, norms, and traditions, which are fundamental ideas from the homo sociologicus model. All things considered, it appears that in order to best model homo sapiens, we must combine both the homo economicus model and the homo sociologicus model. By first understanding the individual using the homo economicus model, we are able to combine those ideas with ones from the homo sociologicus model and obtain a wider more complete sense of human behavior. By using a combination of the two models, we are able to leverage the preciseness and clarity from the homo economicus model and combine it with the value-based norm-commitments found in the homo sociologicus model.
In conclusion, when trying to model homo sapiens, one should not limit themselves to either the homo economicus model or the homo sociologicus model. While the homo economicus model appears to be more useful than the homo sociologicus model, when used in conjunction, the two are most useful in creating a model for homo sapiens. The homo economicus model, specifically the rational choice model as described by Gary S. Becker, allows for preciseness and clarity by highlighting stable preferences, scarcity of resources, and the existence of markets as devices of coordination. The sociologicus model emphasizes the importance of social institutions such as laws, norms, and traditions. When the instrumental rationality found in the homo economicus model is combined with the value rationality found in the homo sociologicus model it is possible to understand the behavior of homo sapien groups.
Work Cited
Becker, Gary S. “Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 101, no. 3, University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 385–409, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138769.
