• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

G²LM|LIC

  • About
    • History
    • Investigators
    • Team
  • Projects
    • GLM|LIC
      • Agricultural Labour Markets
      • Gender and Employment
      • Labour Markets in Low-Income Countries
      • Migration
      • Skill Training
    • G²LM|LIC
      • Fact & Policy
      • Fertility & Labour markets
      • Barriers to gender parity
      • The Future of Work
      • Policies & Welfare
    • COVID-19
  • Publications
    • Policy Briefs
    • Synthesis Papers
    • Working Papers
    • Published Articles
    • Book
    • Datasets
  • Events
  • Evidence Finder
  • Call for Proposals

Poor and Rational: Decision-Making under Scarcity

Individual decision-making is prone to behavioral biases and deviations, especially among the poor. To get a grip on the extent of this, multiple approaches have been developed and investigated, however, evidence on how and why the availability of financial resources affects decision-making is largely missing. In this paper, researchers use multiple resources of variation in households’ financial constraints – “scarcity” – to show that scarcity improves decision-making in a real-stakes decision with immediate payoffs and that these decision patterns can be explained by decision stakes: when households are poorer, the same decision is more consequential and so, decisions move closer to the normative benchmark. 

Evidence comes from decision experiments with 3059 small-scale farmers in rural Zambia over 14 months that were embedded in an ongoing randomized controlled trial on credit access and labor supply that involved repeated surveys over multiple years (see Fink, Jack and Masiye, 2018).  These experiments focused on behavior in one of the most basic economic decisions: the exchange of goods. Here, participants get one out of two equally valued items and at the end they are offered to trade/exchange them for the other. Results show that strong and robust evidence for the existence of exchange asymmetries (i.e. trading rates below 50 percent) for rural farmers. Furthermore, across all item pairs, only 35 percent of participants traded the endowed item on average. Researchers also investigate the relationship between scarcity and decision-making and conclude that different sources of variation used to identify different households are substantial and predictive of their consumption levels and living conditions. Read the detailed Working Paper here.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Previous Post: « COVID-19 vs. the Ultra-Poor Graduation Approach: Evidence from Bangladesh
Next Post: Seasonal Poverty and the COVID-19 Pandemic »

Primary Sidebar

COVID-19 Jobs of the World

News from our Twitter Account

  • How can countries without a recent census still collect #survey data? 🌍📊 This brief by @ckrafftc @raguiassaad explo… https://t.co/yELV2KYiFY June 2, 2023 12:52 pm
  • In a new @GLMLIC Policy Brief, Amalia Miller, Alp Sungu, and @ramdask make use of online browsing data to show that… https://t.co/DozePWcbTa May 25, 2023 11:00 am
  • Thank you so much everyone for joining today, for great presentations and inputs! Thanks to @orianabandiera… https://t.co/N2LkKQRWog May 23, 2023 7:06 pm
Twitter

Footer

IZA Logo

Established in 1998 in Bonn, Germany, IZA is an independent, non-profit research institution supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation with a focus on the analysis of global labour markets. It operates an international network of about 1,500 economists and researchers spanning across more than 50 countries.

Based on academic excellence and an ambitious publication strategy, IZA serves as a place of communication between academic science and political practice.

DFID Logo

The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) leads the UK's work to end extreme poverty. We're ending the need for aid by creating jobs, unlocking the potential of girls and women, and helping to save lives when humanitarian emergencies hit.

FCDO is a ministerial department, supported by 12 agencies and public bodies.

© 2012–2023 | IZA – Institute of Labor Economics | Code of Conduct | Imprint