FORTUNE -- Much of economics is based on the simple idea that people prefer cheaper products to more expensive ones. But what if that's not always the case?
Those working within the blossoming field of behavioral economics have explored the ways in which humans function (or don't, as the case may be) as rational actors, and new studies show just how bad we can be at making the best decisions for ourselves. One such working paper, published Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, looks at the strange decisions Americans make when it comes to purchasing, of all things, water heaters.
Why water heaters, you ask? The authors of the paper, economists Hunt Allcott and Richard Sweeney, chose this item because the sticker price of water heaters varies considerably based on how energy efficient they are, and the total cost of the product requires consumers to understand both the sticker price and the price of the appliances' energy use over time. The authors say water heaters are a good subject for study "precisely because they are so mundane. Consumers rarely think about their water heater until it breaks unexpectedly, at which point they want to replace it quickly, with limited time for search and information acquisition."
This is the logic behind the "Energy Star," a program in which companies submit their products to the EPA or Department of Energy for efficiency testing, and products that meet certain energy requirements get the "Energy Star" seal. Many of these products are so efficient that even though they are have higher sticker prices, they actually are less expensive for the consumer in the long run. Labeling these products as "Energy Star" products helps close the information gap for consumers who want to act rationally and buy the truly cheaper product.
But Allcott and Sweeny's work calls into question whether the Energy Star label encourages consumers to buy the least expensive (in the long run) product. The economists embedded themselves with a "large nationwide retailer" that sells about 45,000 water heaters every year. They studied the buying habits of roughly 20,000 potential customers who called about water heater purchases, examining how sales of energy-efficient models were affected by heavy incentives like $100 rebates for customers and $25 sales incentives for salespeople who sold energy-efficient models. They found that even with the rebates, which often increased the typical customer's return on investment to 28% t0 37%, customers overwhelming chose to buy a water heater with a lower sticker price.
Consumers have an irrational bias against high upfront costs, even when they are aware that the cost of the product will be cheaper in the long run.
The study's findings also have implications for policymakers. Consider the public battle over incandescent lightbulbs. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007," which, among other things, banned the manufacture of most incandescent light bulbs in use at that time because they were too energy inefficient. Despite industry innovation in the light bulb market that reduced the total cost of lighting (bulb and electricity included), customers still went for the cheap and familiar incandescent bulbs they were used to. They needed to be nudged into submission to opt for the energy-efficient bulbs.
Yale economist William Nordhaus has studied the economics of climate change extensively, and sees "energy-cost myopia" as a prime reason the government should regulate markets for appliances. In his recent book The Climate Casino, Nordhaus compares regulations that require efficient products to those that require cars to include airbags. "Since people do not always behave in their long-run self interest, careful use of regulatory mandates can save lives (in the case of airbags) or money and CO2 emissions (in the case of effective energy regulations)," he writes.
This is the justification for many government programs, from Social Security to unemployment insurance. People don't always behave in their best interests, and despite the high-profile complaining about the disappearance of certain lightbulbs, we're all better off without them.
Regulators balk on a rule that was meant to insure sensible mortgage lending.
FORTUNE -- Regulators have, once again, backed down on a piece of financial regulation put in place in the wake of the financial crisis. And that's too bad.
On Wednesday, six government agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., proposed relaxing a rule in Dodd-Frank that was meant to limit risky mortgage lending. The proposed MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Aug 29, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Updated March 22 11:45 AM
For foreign banks, Dodd-Frank might have an escape hatch.
FORTUNE -- Foreign banks may have come up with a way to remain eligible for U.S. bailouts without having to follow some of the pesky rules that came out of the financial crisis, rules that were meant to prevent future taxpayer rescues.
Last month, German financial giant Deutsche Bank altered the legal structure of its U.S. operations so that MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 21, 2012 7:40 PM ET
Good news! Central bankers just got another reason to put off raising interest rates.
A study by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says international rules raising bank capital levels will slow economic growth only a bit in coming years, by slightly raising borrowing costs.
The report counters the banking lobby's reflexive claim that any rules imposed on bankers threaten to kneecap economic growth.
But by now we have all MOREColin Barr - Feb 17, 2011 11:49 AM ET
Like any good coach, the president needs to make some halftime adjustments. Here are a few that will work.
By Harold Ford Jr., contributor
Legendary football coaches succeed in large part because of their ability to make halftime adjustments when their teams are losing. At the halftime of Obama's first term, our country is down -- and so is my party.
As America's head coach, President Obama needs to make some big and MOREScott Olster, editor - Nov 18, 2010 12:00 AM ET
The fog over the financial industry is about to lift just a bit.
Regulators are expected to release guidelines Sunday spelling out the size and type of capital cushion banks must hold against losses. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which comprises officials from 27 countries including the United States, is updating its rules in hopes of preventing a recurrence of the 2008 financial meltdown.
The new policies, known as Basel III, will be enforced MOREColin Barr - Sep 10, 2010 6:33 AM ET
|Standard & Poor's cuts Russia's credit rating|
|Internet giant Sina caught in China porn crackdown|
|Will 7 Apples a day keep the bears away? - The Buzz|
|Don't assume you're safe from Heartbleed|
|Tesla finds friends in the FTC|