Homo Economicus: A Fan Of Intercollegiate Athletics
Homo economicus: His (non)existence as a fan of intercollegiate athletics
Homo economicus
The standard (read: traditional) economic model of predicting human behavior assumes that people are inherently rational and make decisions that will yield the best results for themselves (Kopcke, Little, and Tootell, 2003). When applying the model to a person, economists would expect him to pursue ends in an optimal way. Homo economicus, the economic man, as he has come to be known, is economists’ idealized version of a Homo sapien. Homo economicus is supremely rational, possessing no emotions that could interfere with his predetermined desires. Instead, he makes use of a personal utility function that seeks to achieve maximal gain at a minimal cost. …show more content…
If so, is achieving a state of Homo economicus even desirable? If it is indeed desirable from an individual’s point of view, say, that of a fan, is it good for sports?
This article takes what we know about fans of intercollegiate sport as consumers and as supporters with a vested interest in their chosen university’s athletics programs and apply them to standard economic models of human behavior. It will explore characteristics of homo economicus and question whether or not fans can fit in such models, or if their behaviors disagree with economists’ idealized version of man.
His Origin In his essay, “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to it,” philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill, seeking to describe en economically expedient subject for study in the field, says:
[Political economy] does not treat the whole of man’s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end (Mill, 1836, p. 321).
Mill later clarifies, …show more content…
Adam Smith (1986) wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (p. 119). Aristotle, perhaps unknowingly, described Homo economicus in his Politics; discussing the nature of self-interest, he wrote on the pleasure derived from ownership and man’s love of self as being valid because it was prescribed by nature. This was, however, “not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure” (Haney, p.
Homo economicus
The standard (read: traditional) economic model of predicting human behavior assumes that people are inherently rational and make decisions that will yield the best results for themselves (Kopcke, Little, and Tootell, 2003). When applying the model to a person, economists would expect him to pursue ends in an optimal way. Homo economicus, the economic man, as he has come to be known, is economists’ idealized version of a Homo sapien. Homo economicus is supremely rational, possessing no emotions that could interfere with his predetermined desires. Instead, he makes use of a personal utility function that seeks to achieve maximal gain at a minimal cost. …show more content…
If so, is achieving a state of Homo economicus even desirable? If it is indeed desirable from an individual’s point of view, say, that of a fan, is it good for sports?
This article takes what we know about fans of intercollegiate sport as consumers and as supporters with a vested interest in their chosen university’s athletics programs and apply them to standard economic models of human behavior. It will explore characteristics of homo economicus and question whether or not fans can fit in such models, or if their behaviors disagree with economists’ idealized version of man.
His Origin In his essay, “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to it,” philosopher and political economist John Stuart Mill, seeking to describe en economically expedient subject for study in the field, says:
[Political economy] does not treat the whole of man’s nature as modified by the social state, nor of the whole conduct of man in society. It is concerned with him solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end (Mill, 1836, p. 321).
Mill later clarifies, …show more content…
Adam Smith (1986) wrote, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (p. 119). Aristotle, perhaps unknowingly, described Homo economicus in his Politics; discussing the nature of self-interest, he wrote on the pleasure derived from ownership and man’s love of self as being valid because it was prescribed by nature. This was, however, “not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money and other such objects in a measure” (Haney, p.