Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodological Individualism in Behavioral Economics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Methodological Individualism

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role of methodological individualism in behavioral economics. Since behavioral economics developed in reaction to traditional microeconomics, the chapter sketches first the latter’s understanding of methodological individualism. It argues that traditional microeconomics is based on three principles: the self-interest principle, the rationality principle, and the social change principle. The chapter then discusses experimental findings that led behavioral economists to relax all three principles. It argues that, in particular, the relaxation of the social change principle pushes the boundaries of methodological individualism as understood in traditional microeconomics since it highlights ways in which social institutions, norms, and rules affect individual processes of preference formation. In doing so, behavioral economics invites intricate methodological discussions of the bidirectional relationship between social institutions and individual actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Becker (1976, p. 5) defends the assumption of preference stability; it “provides a stable foundation for generating predictions about responses to various changes, and prevents the analyst from succumbing to the temptation of simply postulating the required shift in preferences to ‘explain’ all apparent contradictions to his predictions.”

  2. 2.

    Strictly speaking, each individual takes the price as given at the moment of choice and the market price that comes to prevail is an outcome of the choices of all individuals (Arrow 1994).

  3. 3.

    Schumpeter used the term ‘sociological individualism’ to describe what many people today describe as ‘methodological individualism’ (Hodgson 2007, p. 213).

  4. 4.

    See Heukelom (2014) for a comprehensive discussion of the history and success of ‘new’ behavioral economics.

  5. 5.

    Like standard microeconomics, behavioral economics assumes that incentives still matter for individuals’ social preferences. When experimenters exogenously increase the stakes, recipients become more willing to accept unfair offers (Andersen et al. 2011).

  6. 6.

    This is different from the standard assumption of exponential discounting in traditional microeconomics in which the discount factor is independent of the time horizon.

  7. 7.

    A famous example in this context is the coffee mug experiment (Kahneman et al. 1990). Following a random allocation, half of the subjects get a mug and half of the subjects a chocolate bar of approximately the same monetary value. When trade is allowed between coffee mug-subjects and chocolate bar-subjects, fewer than one quarter of subjects will take up this offer. Yet, traditional microeconomics would predict that half of them should trade.

  8. 8.

    For an overview of the applicability of prospect theory to real-world markets, see Barberis (2013).

  9. 9.

    For more comprehensive discussions of ways in which prospect theory explains social phenomena outside the lab, see Camerer (2000) and Barberis (2013).

  10. 10.

    For critical discussions of the assumption of ‘true’ preferences, see Dold (2018) and Sugden (2018).

  11. 11.

    This sociologically enriched version of behavioral economics is supported by insights from evolutionary psychology (Heyes 2018) and anthropology (Henrich 2016, 2020). A core insight is that the sociocultural environment physically rewires people’s brains and thereby shapes how they think and what they want.

  12. 12.

    According to Bowles (1998, p. 80), this durable preference change is a core aspect of preference endogeneity and differentiates it from mere preference instability: “preferences learned under one set of circumstances become generalized reasons for behavior. Thus, economic institutions may induce specific behaviors—self-regarding, opportunistic, or cooperative, say—which then become part of the behavioral repertoire of the individual.”

  13. 13.

    The effectiveness of default rules (e.g., in the context of retirement savings, insurance plans, and organ donation) is sometimes explained along similar lines, see Fehr and Hoff (2011).

  14. 14.

    For instance, when primed of their professional identify, bankers do not choose the lens through which to analyze the choice options; rather their active mental model is the outcome of an unconscious reaction to environmental cues (Hoff and Stiglitz 2016, p. 39).

  15. 15.

    In doing so, strand two behavioral economics shifts the boundaries of methodological individualism as understood in traditional microeconomics, but not necessarily the boundaries of methodological individualism in general. For instance, in sociology in the tradition of Max Weber methodological individualism typically assumes that individuals’ preferences and beliefs are context-dependent, i.e., influenced by the material, social, and cultural environment.

  16. 16.

    For a discussion of historical, social survey, and ethnographic data supporting this view, see Bowles (1998).

  17. 17.

    Knight (1923, p. 587) further explicates: “the issue as to the influence of the economic system on character … should at least be raised. Emphasis will be placed on the particular phase of competitive emulation as a motive and of success in a contest as an ethical value. The competitive economic order must be partly responsible for making emulation and rivalry the outstanding quality in the character of the Western peoples who have adopted and developed it.”

References

  • Alexander, J. (1987). The micro-macro link. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, S., Ertaç, S., Gneezy, U., Hoffman, M., & List, J. A. (2011). Stakes matter in ultimatum games. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3427–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angner, E. (2019). We’re all behavioral economists now. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26(3), 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angner, E. (2020). A course in behavioral economics, 3d. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Behavioral economics. In U. Mäki (Ed.), Philosophy of economics (pp. 641–690). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1994). Methodological individualism and social knowledge. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, N., Karlan, D., & Yin, W. (2006). Tying Odysseus to the mast: Evidence from a commitment savings product in the Philippines. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Strickland, A. J. (2010). Social identity and preferences. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1913–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: behavior, institutions, and evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. (2016). The moral economy: Why good incentives are no substitute for good citizens. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., & Polania-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), 368–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, G., & Tullock, G. (1982). An economic theory of military tactics: Methodological individualism at war. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(2–3), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values and Frames (pp. 288–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, E. (2018). Behavioral economics, 3d. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516(7529), 86–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic literature, 47(2), 448–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. B. (2009). Individualism. In J. Peil and I. van Staveren (Eds.), Handbook of economics and ethics (pp. 261–266). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. B. (2015). Bounded rationality and bounded individuality. In A Research Annual (Vol. 33, pp. 75–93). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruijn, E. J., & Antonides, G. (2022). Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision, 92(1), 5–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006). Paying not to go to the gym. American Economic Review, 96(3), 694–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Iorio, F. (2013). Cognitive Autonomy and Epistemology of Action in Hayek’s and Merleau-Ponty’s Thought. In R. Frantz and R. Leeson (Eds.), Hayek and behavioral economics (pp. 149–176). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dold, M. F. (2018). Back to Buchanan? Explorations of welfare and subjectivism in behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(2), 160–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dold, M., & Gewecke, A. (forthcoming). The Way we Change: Meritocracy in its Social Context. In: Mathis, K. and Tor, A. (eds.). Law and Economics of Justice: Efficiency, Reciprocity, Meritocracy. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dold, M., & Lewis, P. (2022). FA Hayek on the political economy of endogenous preferences: An historical overview and contemporary assessment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 196, 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dold, M., & Lewis, P. (2023). A Neglected Topos in Behavioural Normative Economics: The Opportunity and Process Aspect of Freedom. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1982). Marxism, functionalism and game theory. Theory and Society, 11(4), 453–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Zehnder, C. (2006). Fairness perceptions and reservation wages—the behavioral effects of minimum wage laws. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1347–1381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002). Why social preferences matter–the impact of non‐selfish motives on competition, cooperation and incentives. The Economic Journal, 112(478), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Leibbrandt, A. (2011). A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1144–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frerichs, S. (2019). Bounded sociality: behavioral economists’ truncated understanding of the social and its implications for politics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26(3), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In: Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2009). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A fine is a price. The journal of legal studies, 29(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, A., & Fessler, D. M. (2012). Conflict, sticks and carrots: war increases prosocial punishments and rewards. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1727), 219–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. ([1942–44] 1979). “Scientism and the Study of Society.” In The counter-revolution of science: studies on the abuse of reason (pp. 17–182). Indianapolis: Liberty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves Heap, S. P. (2013). What is the meaning of behavioural economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(5), 985–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves Heap, S. P. (2020). Two accounts of the relation between political economy and economics (and why it matters which account is better). Social Philosophy and Policy, 37(1), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves Heap, S. P. (2022). Laboratory experiments and Austrian economics. In D.J. D'Amico and A.G. Martin (Eds.), Contemporary methods and Austrian economics (pp. 55–67). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Economics & Philosophy, 25(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2020). Methodological individualism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/methodological-individualism

  • Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: How the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (Eds.). (2004). Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., & Ziker, J. (2010a). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science, 327(5972), 1480–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010b). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heukelom, F. (2014). Behavioral economics: A history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Meanings of methodological individualism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(2), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Hoff, K. (2011). Introduction: Tastes, castes and culture: The influence of society on preferences. The Economic Journal, 121(556), 396–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, K., Kshetramade, M., & Fehr, E. (2011). Caste and punishment: The legacy of caste culture in norm enforcement. The Economic Journal, 121(556), 449–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoff, K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). Striving for balance in economics: Towards a theory of the social determination of behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 126, 25–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzler, K. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Do infants show social preferences for people differing in race? Cognition, 119(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1923). The ethics of competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 37(4), 579–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, L. M. (1969). Methodological individualism and the market economy. In E. W. Streissler (Ed.), Roads to freedom: Essays in honor of Friedrich A. von Hayek (pp. 89–103). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laibson, D., & List, J. A. (2015). Principles of (behavioral) economics. American Economic Review, 105(5), 385–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, K., & Kahn-Lang Spitzer, A. (2020). Race discrimination: An economic perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(2), 68–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBoeuf, R. A., Shafir, E., & Bayuk, J. B. (2010). The conflicting choices of alternating selves. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecouteux, G. (2022) The Homer economics narrative: from cognitive psychology to individual public policies. GREDEG WP No. 2022-29, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03791951.

  • Leibbrandt, A. (2012). Are social preferences related to market performance? Experimental Economics, 15(4), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (2022). Beyond Positivism, Behaviorism, and Neoinstitutionalism in Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Menger, C. [1963] 1985. Investigations into the Methods of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics. New York: New York University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2000). Behavioral economics. NBER Working Paper 7948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odean, T. (1998). Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? The Journal of Finance, 53(5), 1775–1798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Read, D., & Van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, D. (2022). Economics is converging with sociology but not with psychology. Journal of Economic Methodology, 1–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T., & Thaler, R. (1985). The relevance of quasi rationality in competitive markets. The American Economic Review, 75(5), 1071–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What's become of the common good? London: Penguin UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A. K. (2000). Merit and justice. In: K. Arrow, S. Bowles, and S. Durlauf (Eds.), Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sent, E. M. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36(4), 735–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). Models of my life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1981). Economics or ethics? In S. McMuffin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J., & Becker, G. S. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum. The American Economic Review, 67(2), 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (2016). Ontology, methodological individualism, and the foundations of the social sciences. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(4), 1377–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (2018). The community of advantage: A behavioral economist's defense of the market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (1996). On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144(5), 2021–2053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, T., C. F. Camerer, & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. The American Economic Review, 100 (1), 557–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of behavioral economics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). The framing of decisions and the evaluation of prospects. In R. Barcan Marcus, G. Dorn, and P. Weingartner (Eds.), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, Vol. 114 (pp. 503–520). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voors, M. J., Nillesen, E. E., Verwimp, P., Bulte, E. H., Lensink, R., & Van Soest, D. P. (2012). Violent conflict and behavior: a field experiment in Burundi. American Economic Review, 102(2), 941–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, G. (2022). Austrian behavioral economics. Journal of Institutional Economics, 18(3), 449–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, N., & Klaes, M. (2017). An introduction to Behavioral Economics, 3d. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics Department, Pomona College, Claremont, USA

    Malte Dold

Authors
  1. Malte Dold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malte Dold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. French National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France

    Nathalie Bulle

  2. Nankai University, Tianjin, China

    Francesco Di Iorio

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dold, M. (2023). Methodological Individualism in Behavioral Economics. In: Bulle, N., Di Iorio, F. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methodological Individualism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41512-8_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41512-8_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41511-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41512-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation