John Nash's Economic Equilibrium Mythology & Adam Smith's Invisible Hand Impossibility

RJV TECHNOLOGIES LTD
Economic Department
Published: 30 June 2025

Table of Contents

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive critique of two foundational pillars of modern economic thought John Nash’s equilibrium theory and Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand.

Through rigorous examination of empirical evidence, behavioural research and systemic analysis spanning seven decades since Nash’s formulation we demonstrate that these theoretical constructs represent not scientific principles but ideological artifacts that fundamentally misrepresent human nature, market dynamics and collective welfare mechanisms.

Our analysis reveals that the persistence of these theories in academic and policy circles constitutes a form of mathematical mysticism that has obscured rather than illuminated the actual mechanisms by which societies achieve coordination and prosperity.

Introduction

The edifice of contemporary economic theory rests upon two seemingly unshakeable foundations where the mathematical elegance of Nash equilibrium and the intuitive appeal of Smith’s invisible hand.

These concepts have achieved a status approaching religious doctrine in economic circles treated not as hypotheses to be tested but as axiomatic truths that define the boundaries of legitimate economic discourse.

Yet after seven decades of empirical observation since Nash’s formulation and over two centuries since Smith’s foundational work we find ourselves confronting an uncomfortable reality where these theoretical constructs have consistently failed to manifest in observable human systems.

This paper argues that the persistence of these theories represents one of the most significant intellectual failures in the social sciences comparable to the persistence of phlogiston theory in chemistry or vitalism in biology.

More troubling still, these theories have been weaponized to justify policy prescriptions that systematically undermine the very collective welfare they purport to optimize.

The time has come for a fundamental reconsideration of these foundational assumptions grounded not in mathematical abstraction but in empirical observation of how human societies actually function.

The Architecture of Delusion: Nash Equilibrium and the Rationality Fallacy

The Foundational Assumptions and Their Empirical Bankruptcy

Nash’s equilibrium concept rests upon a constellation of assumptions about human behaviour that are not merely simplifications but represent a fundamental misunderstanding of human cognitive architecture.

The theory requires that each actor possess complete information about all possible strategies, payoffs and the decision making processes of all other participants.

This assumption of perfect rationality extends beyond unrealistic into the realm of the neurologically impossible.

Contemporary neuroscience and cognitive psychology have established beyond reasonable doubt that human decision making operates through a dual process system characterized by fast heuristic driven judgments and slower, more deliberative processes that are themselves subject to systematic biases and limitations.

The work of Kahneman and Tversky on prospect theory demonstrated that humans consistently violate the basic axioms of rational choice theory displaying loss aversion, framing effects and probability weighting that make Nash’s rational actor a psychological impossibility rather than a mere theoretical convenience.

The assumption of complete information is equally problematic. Human societies are characterized by profound information asymmetries not as a temporary market failure to be corrected but as a fundamental feature of complex adaptive systems.

Information is costly to acquire, process and verify.

Even in our contemporary era of unprecedented information availability individuals operate with radically incomplete knowledge of the systems they participate in.

The very existence of advertising, propaganda and market research industries represents empirical evidence that actors neither possess complete information nor behave as the rational calculators Nash’s theory requires.

The Empirical Vacuum: Seven Decades of Non Observation

Perhaps the most damning evidence against Nash equilibrium theory is the complete absence of documented cases where such equilibria have emerged and stabilized in large scale human systems.

This is not a matter of measurement difficulty or incomplete data collection.

After seventy years of intensive study by economists, sociologists and political scientists equipped with increasingly sophisticated analytical tools we have failed to identify even a single convincing example of a Nash equilibrium emerging naturally in a complex social system.

Financial markets which should represent the most favorable conditions for Nash equilibrium given their supposed rationality and information efficiency instead exhibit patterns of boom and bust, herding behaviour and systematic irrationality that directly contradict equilibrium predictions.

The dot com bubble, the 2008 financial crisis and the cryptocurrency manias of recent years all represent massive departures from any conceivable equilibrium state.

These are not minor deviations or temporary market inefficiencies but fundamental contradictions of the theory’s core predictions.

Political systems similarly fail to exhibit Nash equilibrium characteristics.

Instead of reaching stable optimal strategies, political actors engage in continuous adaptation, coalition formation and strategic innovation that keeps systems in perpetual disequilibrium.

The very concept of political strategy assumes that actors are constantly seeking advantages over their opponents and not settling into stable strategic configurations.

Even in controlled laboratory settings designed to test Nash equilibrium predictions, researchers consistently find that human subjects deviate from theoretical predictions in systematic ways.

These deviations are not random errors that cancel out over time but represent fundamental differences between how humans actually behave and how Nash’s theory predicts they should behave.

The Narcissism Paradox and the Impossibility of Emergent Altruism

Central to Nash’s framework is the assumption that individual optimization will somehow aggregate into collective benefit.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how emergent properties function in complex systems.

The theory essentially argues that a system composed entirely of selfish actors will spontaneously generate outcomes that benefit the collective without any mechanism to explain how this transformation occurs.

This assumption flies in the face of both evolutionary biology and anthropological evidence about human social organization.

Successful human societies have always required mechanisms for suppressing purely selfish behaviour and promoting cooperation.

These mechanisms range from informal social norms and reputation systems to formal legal frameworks and enforcement institutions.

The tragedy of the commons, extensively documented in both theoretical work and empirical studies demonstrates that purely self interested behaviour leads to collective disaster in the absence of coordinating institutions.

Evolutionary biology provides clear explanations for why humans possess capacities for both cooperation and competition.

Group selection pressures favoured societies that could coordinate collective action while individual selection pressures maintained competitive instincts.

The resulting human behavioural repertoire includes sophisticated capacities for reciprocal altruism in group cooperation and institutional design that Nash’s framework simply ignores.

The prisoner’s dilemma often cited as supporting Nash equilibrium actually demonstrates its fundamental flaws.

In the classic formulation the Nash equilibrium solution involves both players defecting and producing the worst possible collective outcome.

Real humans faced with repeated prisoner’s dilemma scenarios consistently develop cooperative strategies that violate Nash predictions but produce superior collective outcomes.

This pattern holds across cultures and contexts suggesting that Nash’s solution concept identifies not optimal strategies but pathological ones.

The Theological Economics of Adam Smith: Deconstructing the Invisible Hand

The Mystification of Market Coordination

Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand represents one of the most successful examples of intellectual sleight of hand in the history of economic thought.

By invoking an invisible mechanism to explain market coordination Smith essentially imported theological reasoning into economic analysis while maintaining the pretence of scientific explanation.

The invisible hand functions in economic theory precisely as divine providence functions in theological systems where it provides a comforting explanation for complex phenomena while remaining conveniently immune to empirical verification or falsification.

The fundamental problem with the invisible hand metaphor is that it obscures rather than illuminates the actual mechanisms by which markets coordinate economic activity.

Real market coordination occurs through visible, analysable institutions, property rights systems, legal frameworks, information networks, transportation infrastructure and regulatory mechanisms.

These institutions do not emerge spontaneously from individual self interest but require conscious design, public investment and ongoing maintenance.

The mystification becomes particularly problematic when we examine the historical development of market economies.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism did not occur through the spontaneous emergence of market coordination but through centuries of state building, legal innovation and often violent transformation of social relations.

The enclosure movements, the development of banking systems and the creation of limited liability corporations all required extensive government intervention and legal innovation that contradicts the notion of spontaneous market emergence.

The Externality Problem and the Limits of Individual Optimization

Smith’s framework assumes that individual pursuit of self interest will aggregate into collective benefit but this assumption systematically ignores the problem of externalities.

Externalities are not minor market imperfections but fundamental features of complex economic systems.

Every economic transaction occurs within a broader social and environmental context that bears costs and receives benefits not captured in the transaction price.

The environmental crisis provides the most dramatic illustration of this problem.

Individual optimization in production and consumption has generated collective environmental degradation that threatens the viability of human civilization itself.

No invisible hand has emerged to correct these market failures because individual actors have no incentive to internalize costs that are distributed across the entire global population and future generations.

Similarly the financial sector’s growth over the past half century demonstrates how individual optimization can systematically undermine collective welfare.

The expansion of speculative financial activities has generated enormous private profits while creating systemic risks that periodically impose massive costs on society as a whole.

The invisible hand that was supposed to guide these activities toward socially beneficial outcomes has instead guided them toward socially destructive speculation and rent seeking.

The Consolidation Paradox: From Decentralization to Oligarchy

One of the most striking contradictions in Smith’s framework concerns the relationship between market mechanisms and economic concentration.

Smith argued that market competition would prevent the excessive accumulation of economic power yet the historical trajectory of market economies has been toward increasing concentration and consolidation.

The introduction of money as a medium of exchange, while solving certain coordination problems simultaneously created new possibilities for accumulation and speculation that Smith’s framework could not anticipate.

Money is not simply a neutral medium of exchange but a store of value that can be accumulated, leveraged and used to generate more money through financial manipulation rather than productive activity.

The development of financial markets has amplified these dynamics to an extraordinary degree.

financial systems bear little resemblance to the productive allocation mechanisms that Smith envisioned.

Instead they function primarily as wealth concentration mechanisms that extract value from productive economic activity rather than facilitating it.

High frequency trading, derivative speculation and complex financial engineering create private profits while adding no productive value to the economy.

The result has been the emergence of financial oligarchies that exercise unprecedented economic and political power.

These oligarchies did not emerge despite market mechanisms but through them.

The invisible hand that was supposed to prevent such concentrations of power has instead facilitated them by providing ideological cover for policies that systematically advantage capital over labour and financial speculation over productive investment.

The Behavioral Revolution and the Collapse of Rational Actor Models

Cognitive Architecture and Decision Making Reality

The development of behavioral economics over the past four decades has systematically dismantled the psychological assumptions underlying both Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories.

Research in cognitive psychology has revealed that human decision making operates through cognitive architectures that are fundamentally incompatible with rational choice assumptions.

Humans employ heuristics and biases that systematically deviate from rational optimization.

These deviations are not random errors but systematic patterns that reflect the evolutionary history of human cognition.

Loss aversion, anchoring effects, availability bias and confirmation bias all represent adaptive responses to ancestral environments that produce systematic errors in contemporary decision making contexts.

The dual process model of cognition reveals that most human decisions are made through fast and automatic processes that operate below the threshold of conscious awareness.

These processes are heavily influenced by emotional states, social context and environmental cues that rational choice theory cannot accommodate.

Even when individuals engage in more deliberative decision making processes they remain subject to framing effects and other systematic biases that violate rational choice axioms.

Social psychology has added another layer of complexity by demonstrating how individual decision making is embedded in social contexts that profoundly influence behaviour.

Conformity pressures, authority effects and in group/out group dynamics all shape individual choices in ways that are invisible to purely individualistic theoretical frameworks.

The assumption that individuals make independent optimization decisions ignores the fundamentally social nature of human cognition.

Network Effects and Systemic Dependencies

Contemporary network theory has revealed how individual behaviour is embedded in complex webs of interdependence that make isolated optimization impossible even in principle.

Individual outcomes depend not only on individual choices but on the choices of others, the structure of social networks and emergent system level properties that no individual actor can control or fully comprehend.

These network effects create path dependencies and lock-in effects that contradict the assumption of flexible optimization that underlies both Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories.

Once systems develop along particular trajectories they become increasingly difficult to redirect even when alternative paths would produce superior outcomes.

The QWERTY keyboard layout provides a classic example of how suboptimal solutions can become locked in through network effects despite their inefficiency.

Financial networks exhibit similar lock-in effects on a much larger scale.

The dominance of particular financial centres, currencies and institutions reflects network effects rather than efficiency optimization.

Once these networks achieve critical mass, they become self reinforcing even when superior alternatives might exist.

The persistence of inefficient financial practices and the resistance to financial innovation that would reduce systemic risk both reflect these network lock in effects.

Institutional Analysis and the Reality of Collective Action

The Architecture of Cooperation

Successful human societies have always required institutional mechanisms for coordinating collective action and managing conflicts between individual and group interests.

These institutions do not emerge spontaneously from individual optimization but require conscious design, cultural evolution and ongoing maintenance.

The assumption that individual optimization will automatically generate collective benefit ignores the extensive institutional infrastructure that makes market coordination possible.

Property rights systems provide a crucial example.

Secure property rights are often cited as a prerequisite for market efficiency but property rights do not emerge naturally from individual behaviour.

They require legal systems, enforcement mechanisms and social norms that support respect for property claims.

The development of these institutional frameworks required centuries of political struggle and institutional innovation that had little to do with individual optimization and everything to do with collective problem solving.

Similarly the institutions that govern financial systems represent collective responses to the instabilities and coordination problems that emerge from purely market based allocation mechanisms.

Central banking, financial regulation and deposit insurance all represent institutional innovations designed to correct market failures and protect collective welfare from the destructive effects of individual optimization in financial markets.

Trust, Reputation and Social Capital

The functioning of complex economic systems depends critically on trust and reputation mechanisms that operate outside the framework of individual optimization.

Trust reduces transaction costs and enables cooperation that would be impossible under conditions of pure self interest.

Yet trust is a collective good that can be destroyed by individual optimization but can only be built through repeated demonstration of trustworthy behaviour.

Social capital represents the accumulated trust, reciprocity and cooperative capacity within a community.

Societies with high levels of social capital consistently outperform societies that rely primarily on individual optimization and market mechanisms.

The decline of social capital in many developed societies over the past several decades correlates with increasing inequality, political polarization and institutional dysfunction.

The maintenance of social capital requires institutions and cultural practices that prioritize collective welfare over individual optimization.

These include educational systems that teach civic virtues, legal systems that enforce fair dealing and cultural norms that sanction antisocial behaviour.

None of these institutions emerge automatically from market processes or individual optimization.

Environmental Crisis and the Failure of Market Solutions

The Tragedy of the Global Commons

The environmental crisis provides the most dramatic and consequential example of how individual optimization can produce collective disaster.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion all result from the aggregation of individually rational decisions that collectively threaten human civilization.

No invisible hand has emerged to coordinate environmental protection because the costs of environmental degradation are distributed across the entire global population and future generations while the benefits of environmentally destructive activities are concentrated among contemporary economic actors.

Market mechanisms have not only failed to solve environmental problems but have systematically exacerbated them by treating environmental resources as free inputs to production processes.

The assumption that individual optimization will lead to efficient resource allocation ignores the fact that environmental resources often have no market price and therefore do not enter into individual optimization calculations.

The few attempts to create market mechanisms for environmental protection such as carbon trading systems have generally failed to achieve their environmental objectives while creating new opportunities for financial speculation and manipulation.

These failures reflect fundamental limitations of market mechanisms rather than implementation problems that can be solved through better design.

Intergenerational Justice and Temporal Coordination

Environmental problems reveal another fundamental limitation of individual optimization frameworks where their inability to coordinate action across extended time horizons.

Individual optimization typically operates on time scales measured in years or decades while environmental problems require coordination across generations and centuries.

Market mechanisms systematically discount future costs and benefits in ways that make long term environmental protection economically irrational from an individual perspective.

The discount rates used in financial markets make investments in environmental protection appear economically inefficient even when they are essential for long term human survival.

This temporal mismatch reveals a deep structural problem with market coordination mechanisms.

Markets are efficient at coordinating activities with short term feedback loops but systematically fail when coordination requires sacrificing short term benefits for long term collective welfare.

Climate change represents the ultimate test of this limitation, and markets are failing the test catastrophically.

Financial Speculation and the Perversion of Market Mechanisms

The Financialization of Everything

The growth of financial markets over the past half-century provides a compelling case study in how individual optimization can systematically undermine collective welfare.

The expansion of financial speculation has not improved the allocation of capital to productive investments but has instead created a parallel economy focused on extracting value from productive economic activity.

Financialization has transformed markets for basic necessities like housing, food and energy into speculative vehicles that generate profits for financial actors while imposing costs on everyone else.

Housing markets in major cities around the world have been distorted by speculative investment that treats homes as financial assets rather than places for people to live.

Food commodity speculation contributes to price volatility that increases hunger and malnutrition in vulnerable populations.

The invisible hand that was supposed to guide these markets toward socially beneficial outcomes has instead guided them toward socially destructive speculation that enriches financial elites while imposing costs on society as a whole.

This pattern reflects not market failure but the inherent tendency of market mechanisms to generate inequality and instability when they are not constrained by appropriate institutional frameworks.

Systemic Risk and Collective Vulnerability

Financial speculation creates systemic risks that threaten the stability of entire economic systems. Individual financial actors have incentives to take risks that generate private profits while imposing potential costs on society as a whole.

The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated how this dynamic can produce economic catastrophes that destroy millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in wealth.

The response to the 2008 crisis revealed the fundamental contradiction in market fundamentalist ideology.

Governments around the world intervened massively to prevent financial system collapse, socializing the losses from private speculation while allowing speculators to retain their profits.

This pattern of privatized gains and socialized losses contradicts every assumption about market efficiency and individual accountability that underlies both Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories.

Subsequent financial crises have followed similar patterns, demonstrating that the 2008 crisis reflected structural features of financialized market systems rather than exceptional circumstances.

The invisible hand consistently guides financial markets toward instability and crisis rather than stability and efficiency.

Alternative Frameworks: Cooperation, Complexity and Collective Intelligence

Evolutionary Approaches to Social Coordination

Evolutionary biology provides alternative frameworks for understanding social coordination that are grounded in empirical observation rather than mathematical abstraction.

Group selection theory explains how human societies developed capacities for cooperation and institutional design that enable coordination on scales far exceeding what individual optimization could achieve.

Human behavioural repertoires include sophisticated capacities for reciprocal altruism, fairness enforcement and institutional design that Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories cannot accommodate.

These capacities evolved because they enabled human groups to outcompete groups that relied solely on individual optimization.

The archaeological record demonstrates that human societies have always required institutional mechanisms for managing collective action problems.

Multilevel selection theory provides a framework for understanding how individual and group level selection pressures interact to produce behavioural repertoires that balance individual and collective interests.

This framework explains observed patterns of human cooperation and competition without requiring the unrealistic assumptions of perfect rationality or invisible coordination mechanisms.

Complex Adaptive Systems and Emergent Properties

Complex systems theory offers tools for understanding social coordination that do not rely on equilibrium assumptions or invisible hand mechanisms.

Complex adaptive systems exhibit emergent properties that arise from the interactions among system components but cannot be predicted from the properties of individual components alone.

Social systems exhibit complex adaptive properties that enable coordination and adaptation without requiring either individual optimization or invisible coordination mechanisms.

These properties emerge from the interaction between individual behavioural repertoires, institutional frameworks and environmental constraints.

Understanding these interactions requires empirical observation and computational modelling rather than mathematical derivation from unrealistic assumptions.

Network effects, feedback loops and nonlinear dynamics all play crucial roles in social coordination but are invisible to theoretical frameworks that focus on individual optimization.

Complex systems approaches provide tools for understanding these phenomena and designing institutions that harness emergent properties for collective benefit.

Collective Intelligence and Participatory Governance

Contemporary research on collective intelligence demonstrates how groups can solve problems and make decisions that exceed the capabilities of even the most capable individual members.

These collective intelligence phenomena require appropriate institutional frameworks and participation mechanisms but do not depend on individual optimization or invisible coordination.

Participatory governance mechanisms provide alternatives to both market fundamentalism and centralized planning that harness collective intelligence for public problem solving.

These mechanisms require active citizen participation and institutional support but can produce outcomes that are both more effective and more legitimate than outcomes produced through market mechanisms or technocratic expertise alone.

The development of digital technologies creates new possibilities for scaling participatory governance mechanisms and collective intelligence processes.

These technologies could enable forms of democratic coordination that transcend the limitations of both market mechanisms and traditional representative institutions.

Policy Implications and Institutional Design

Beyond Market Fundamentalism

The critique of Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories has profound implications for economic policy and institutional design.

Policies based on these theories have systematically failed to achieve their stated objectives while imposing enormous costs on society and the environment.

The time has come for a fundamental reorientation of economic policy around empirically grounded understanding of human behaviour and social coordination.

This reorientation requires abandoning the assumption that market mechanisms automatically optimize collective welfare and instead focusing on designing institutions that harness human cooperative capacities while constraining destructive competitive behaviors.

Such institutions must be grounded in empirical understanding of human psychology, social dynamics and environmental constraints rather than mathematical abstractions.

Financial regulation provides a crucial example.

Rather than assuming that financial markets automatically allocate capital efficiently, regulatory frameworks should be designed to channel financial activity toward productive investment while constraining speculation and rent seeking.

This requires treating financial stability as a public good that requires active management rather than a natural outcome of market processes.

Environmental Governance and Planetary Boundaries

Environmental challenges require governance mechanisms that can coordinate action across spatial and temporal scales that exceed the capabilities of market mechanisms.

These governance mechanisms must be grounded in scientific understanding of planetary boundaries and ecological limits rather than economic theories that ignore environmental constraints.

Carbon pricing mechanisms, while potentially useful, are insufficient to address the scale and urgency of environmental challenges.

More comprehensive approaches are required that directly regulate environmentally destructive activities and invest in sustainable alternatives.

These approaches must be designed around ecological imperatives rather than market principles.

International cooperation on environmental issues requires governance mechanisms that transcend national boundaries and market systems.

These mechanisms must be capable of coordinating action among diverse political and economic systems while maintaining legitimacy and effectiveness over extended time periods.

Democratic Innovation and Collective Problem Solving

The failure of market mechanisms to address contemporary challenges creates opportunities for democratic innovation and collective problem solving approaches.

These approaches must harness collective intelligence and participatory governance mechanisms while maintaining effectiveness and accountability.

Deliberative democracy mechanisms provide tools for involving citizens in complex policy decisions while ensuring that decisions are informed by relevant expertise and evidence.

These mechanisms require institutional support and citizen education but can produce outcomes that are both more effective and more legitimate than outcomes produced through either market mechanisms or technocratic expertise alone.

Digital technologies create new possibilities for scaling democratic participation and collective intelligence processes.

However, these technologies must be designed and governed in ways that promote genuine participation and collective problem solving rather than manipulation and surveillance.

Conclusion: Toward Empirical Social Science

The persistence of Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories in economic thought represents a failure of scientific methodology that has imposed enormous costs on human societies and the natural environment.

These theories have achieved paradigmatic status not because of their empirical validity but because of their ideological utility in justifying policies that serve elite interests while imposing costs on everyone else.

The path forward requires abandoning mathematical mysticism in favor of empirical social science that grounds theoretical frameworks in observable human behavior and social dynamics.

This approach requires interdisciplinary collaboration among economists, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and other social scientists who can contribute to understanding the actual mechanisms by which human societies coordinate collective action.

Such an approach must also be grounded in recognition of environmental constraints and planetary boundaries that impose absolute limits on human economic activity.

Economic theories that ignore these constraints are not merely unrealistic but dangerous as they encourage behaviours that threaten the viability of human civilization itself.

The ultimate test of any theoretical framework is its ability to generate predictions that are confirmed by empirical observation and policy prescriptions that achieve their stated objectives while avoiding unintended consequences.

By this standard Nash equilibrium and invisible hand theories have failed catastrophically.

The time has come to consign them to the same historical dustbin that contains other failed theoretical frameworks and to begin the serious work of building empirically grounded understanding of human social coordination.

The challenges facing human societies in the twenty first century require forms of collective intelligence and coordinated action that exceed anything achieved in human history.

Meeting these challenges will require theoretical frameworks that acknowledge human cognitive limitations while harnessing human cooperative capacities.

Most importantly it will require abandoning the comforting myths of automatic coordination and individual optimization in favour of the more demanding but ultimately more rewarding work of conscious collective problem solving and institutional design.

Only by honestly confronting the failures of our dominant theoretical frameworks can we begin to develop the intellectual tools necessary for creating sustainable and equitable human societies.

This task cannot be accomplished through mathematical elegance or ideological commitment but only through patient empirical observation and careful institutional experimentation guided by genuine commitment to collective human welfare.

The future of human civilization may well depend on our ability to make this transition from mythology to science in our understanding of social coordination and collective action.

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism, published by The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.

Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. John Wiley & Sons.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation, published by Basic Books.

Bardhan, P. (1993). Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development, published by World Development, 21(4), 633-639.

Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: Behaviour, Institutions and Evolution, published by Princeton University Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution, published by Princeton University Press.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Cultures, published by Oxford University Press.

Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction, published by Princeton University Press.

Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam.

Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas, published by Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 169-193.

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, published by W. W. Norton & Company.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism, published by Nature, 425(6960), 785-791.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140.

Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, published by Viking.

Gintis, H. (2009). The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioural Sciences, published by Princeton University Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society, published by American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.

Henrich, J. (2016). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species and Making Us Smarter, published by Princeton University Press.

Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and Economic Networks, published by Princeton University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow, published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, published by Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published by Macmillan.

Krugman, P. (2009). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, published by W. W. Norton & Company.

Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions, published by Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115-136.

Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48-49.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, published by Cambridge University Press.

Nowak, M. A. (2006). Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life, published by Harvard University Press.

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, published by Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, published by Cambridge University Press.

Pigou, A. C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare, published by Macmillan.

Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, published by Farrar & Rinehart.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, published by Simon & Schuster.

Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics, published by Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 11-46.

Rothschild, E. (2001). Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment, published by Harvard University Press.

Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure, published by Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389.

Sen, A. (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare, published by Holden Day.

Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational Exuberance. Princeton University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice, published by The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.

Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published by W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics, published by The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1441-1478.

Thaler, R. H. (1992). The Winner’s Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life, published by Free Press.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, published by Yale University Press.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism, published by The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.

Wilson, E. O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth, published by Liveright.

External Links and Resources

Academic Institutions and Research Centres

Centre for Behavioural Economics and Decision Research Carnegie Mellon University
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/research/behavioral-economics/

Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
https://www.ineteconomics.org/

Santa Fe Institute Complex Systems Research
https://www.santafe.edu/

Behavioural Economics Group University of Chicago Booth School
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/directory/research-groups/behavioral-economics

Princeton University Centre for Human Values
https://uchv.princeton.edu/

Policy and Research Organizations

Roosevelt Institute Economic Policy Research
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/

Economic Policy Institute
https://www.epi.org/

Centre for Economic and Policy Research
https://cepr.net/

New Economics Foundation
https://neweconomics.org/

Post Keynesian Economics Society
https://www.postkeynesian.net/

Data and Empirical Resources

World Inequality Database
https://wid.world/

Global Carbon Atlas
http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/

OECD Data Portal
https://data.oecd.org/

Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

Global Footprint Network
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/

Alternative Economic Frameworks

Doughnut Economics Action Lab
https://doughnuteconomics.org/

Economy for the Common Good
https://www.ecogood.org/en/

New Economy Coalition
https://neweconomy.net/

Wellbeing Economy Alliance
https://wellbeingeconomy.org/

Degrowth Association
https://degrowth.info/

Scientific Journals and Publications

Journal of Behavioural Economics (Elsevier)
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-behavioral-and-experimental-economics

Ecological Economics (Elsevier)
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-economics

Real World Economics Review
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/

Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization (Elsevier)
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-economic-behavior-and-organization

Nature Human Behaviour (Nature Publishing Group)
https://www.nature.com/nathumbehav/

Documentary and Educational Resources

“Inside Job” (2010) – Documentary on the 2008 Financial Crisis
Available on various streaming platforms

“The Corporation” (2003) – Documentary on Corporate Behaviour
Available on various streaming platforms

Khan Academy Behavioural Economics
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/behavioral-economics

Coursera Behavioural Economics Courses
https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=behavioral%20economics

TED Talks on Behavioural Economics and Game Theory
https://www.ted.com/topics/behavioral+economics

John Nash’s Economic Equilibrium Mythology & Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand Impossibility