 On the Rationality of Team Reasoning and Some of its Normative ImplicationsPost-Print from HAL Abstract: Theories of team reasoning in game theory build on the assumption that best-reply reasoning is not the only reasoning mode agents may endorse. Instead, they may make choice on the basis of team preferences and/or as participants in a mutually beneficial practice. This paper reflects on the way to account for the rationality of endorsing team reasoning in a strategic decision problem. I focus on the particular issue of the rationality of making choice on the basis of team reasoning rather than other reasoning modes. I argue that the endorsement of team reasoning in specific contexts can be interpreted as a commitment that can be rationally assessed from an agent-subjective perspective. This necessitates making a distinction between preferences, conceived as individual interests, and values, defined as broader motivations and reasons to act. I suggest that this account of the rationality of team reasoning has significant normative implications, in particular regarding the relevance of standard welfare economics. Keywords: Team reasoning; rationality; commitment; mutual advantage; normative economics; raisonnement collectif; rationalité; engagement; avantage mutuel; économie normative (search for similar items in EconPapers) Published in Revue d'économie politique, 2018, 128 (3), pp.373-392. ⟨10.3917/redp.283.0373⟩ There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02865611 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Post-Print from HAL |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.