Bureaucratic Identity and the Shape of Public Policy: A Game Theoretic Analysis

An Institutional Analysis of the Economics of Identity

“…Furthermore, while categorisation into social categories determines the norms an individual should abide by, the social categories one associates with are themselves not immutable (Naseer and Heine 2017). Akerlof and Kranton (2005) describe how hierarchical institutions, particularly the military, can impose management policies designed to create group identification to achieve overall organisational goals.…”

“…Using this idea of group membership-social identity-as playing a role in making economic decisions, explanations as to the existence of externalities have been offered, such as altruism towards one's own racial group, and antagonism towards those outside that group (Darity, Mason, and Stewart 2006). Identity economics, and its associated utility function has been used for modelling and analysis in areas including; racial norms and investment behaviour (Benjamin, Choi, and Strickland 2010); public sector activity (Armey andMelese 2018, Naseer andHeine 2017); income distribution (Arestis, Charles, andFontana 2014, Shayo 2009); norms and their enforcement in the military (Goette, Huffman, and Meier 2006); political agency (Mueller 2016); as well as female genital mutilation (Coyne and Coyne 2014). Davis (2007) and Fine (2008) provide complementary critiques to the general approach of 'identity economics'.…”