Motivations to Contribute to Public Goods: Beyond rational choice economics

Abstract

The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics. This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. This paper questions the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. I argue that a significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social and institutional context, monetization and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy-making to sustain public goods provision.

The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field

“…Rational choice theory has however been criticised for not accounting for social dynamics, given that its key assumption is ceteris paribus [10,23,26]. Furthermore, rational choice theory has proven weak to hold up to empirical evidence, and consequently, a number of alternatives, although still individualistic, approaches have developed [31].…”

“…Drawing heavily on experimental research on people's decision-making patterns, the theory of bounded rationality explores the simplifying heuristics which people apply in situations of information overflow, uncertainty and urgency. Research inspired by the theory of bounded rationality currently inspires most environmental policies, which consequently focus on changing the cost-benefit structure of environmental problems, or on improving the availability and quality of information [31].…”

Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Participatory Modeling to Elicit Behavioral Drivers in Environmental Dilemmas: the Case of Air Pollution in Talca, Chile

“…Such decisions take place in a context of high complexity, characterized by a multitude of individual motivations and needs, which an individual prioritizes situationally (Elsawah et al 2015;Stave 2010;Renn and Schweizer 2009). Consequently, specific motivations or attitudes might fail to result in corresponding actions depending on situational factors, such as a perceived or real incapacity to act, a misperception of the situation or the available action strategies, or the lack of a feeling of personal responsibility (Popa 2015;Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002;Ringrose et al 1996). Environmental problems can thus be understood as the consequence both of conflicting interests or values between individuals, as well as the dilemmas present in the decision-making of one person.…”

“…Environmental problems can thus be understood as the consequence both of conflicting interests or values between individuals, as well as the dilemmas present in the decision-making of one person. Indeed, it has been noted that environmental problems can be the consequence of the dilemmas that a person faces when trying to balance her different values and motivations, as well as due to the ambiguity that can exist regarding the origins, state, and possible solutions to the problem (Popa 2015;Paavola and Adger 2005;Crance and Draper 1996;Ajzen 1991;Max-Neef 1991;Lemons 1989, Giordano et al 2017.…”

“…To disregard the complexity of the motivations that drive individuals' behavior might result in environmental management strategies that crowd out proactive motivations. It is, therefore, important to understand the underlying motivations and needs shaping individuals' decision-making domain (Elsawah et al 2015;Popa 2015;Reed et al 2009;Cárdenas et al 2000, Giordano et al 2017.…”