Contributions in Merlin

null

null

null

null

null

The relationship between theory and practice has been discussed in the social sciences for generations. Academics from management and organization studies regularly lament the divide between theory and practice. They regret the insufficient academic knowledge of managerial problems and their solutions, and criticize the scholarly production of theories that are not relevant for organizational practice (Hambrick 1994). Despite the prevalence of this topic in academic discourse, we do not know much about what kind of academic knowledge would be useful to practice, how it would be produced and how the transfer of knowledge between theory and practice actually works. In short, we do not know how we can make academic work more relevant for practice or even whether this would be desirable. In this introduction to the Special Issue, we apply philosophical, theoretical and empirical perspectives to examine the challenges of studying the generation and use of academic knowledge. We then briefly describe the contribution of the seven papers that were selected for this Special Issue. Finally, we discuss issues that still need to be addressed, and make some proposals for future avenues of research.

Per 1.1.2012 tritt «Swiss GAAP FER 41: Rechnungslegung für Gebäudeversicherer und Krankenversicherer» in Kraft. Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet die wichtigsten Elemente der Swiss GAAP FER 41 für Krankenversicherer und erläutert die Ergebnisse der Studie zur Einführung dieser Fachempfehlung, welche KPMG in Zusammenarbeit mit der Universität Zürich durchgeführt hat.

Error management theory is a theory of considerable scope and emerging influence. The theory claims that cognitive biases do not necessarily reflect flaws in evolutionary design, but that they may be best conceived as design features. Unfortunately, existing accounts are vague with respect to the key concept of bias. The result is that it is unclear that the cognitive biases that the theory seeks to defend are not simply a form of behavioral bias, in which case the theory reduces to a version of expected utility theory. We propose some clarifications and refinements of error management theory by emphasizing important distinctions between different forms of behavioral and cognitive bias. We also highlight a key assumption, that the capacity for Bayesian beliefs is subject to constraints. This assumption is necessary for what we see as error management theory’s genuinely novel claim: that behavioral tendencies to avoid costly errors can rest on systematic departures from Bayesian beliefs, and that the latter can be adaptive insofar as they generate the former.

We consider a pure exchange economy, where for each good several trading institutions are available, only one of which is market-clearing. The other feasible trading institutions lead to rationing. To learn on which trading institutions to coordinate, traders follow behavioral rules of thumb that are based on the past performances of the trading institutions. Given the choice of institutions, market outcomes are determined by an equilibrium concept that allows for rationing. We find that full coordination on the market-clearing institutions without any rationing is a stochastically stable outcome, independently of the characteristics of the alternative available institutions. We also find, though, that coordination on certain other, non-market-clearing institutions with rationing can be stochastically stable.