Investigating Fairness in Transactions: Evidence in Belief Systems

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Nov 6, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/ijief.127
Keywords:
Behavioral rules, Religious Framing, Cultural Heuristic, Equality, Ultimatum Game.

Main Article Content

Hazik Mohamed
Stellar Consulting Group
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8322-2714

Abstract

Fairness is one of the central institutional pillars of Islamic law, and its inherent legal framework dictates, among other things, clarity and ethical behaviors in all our endeavors. Righteous behaviors form the foundation of fairness and justice. This paper attempts to address deep religious understanding in human behavior for fairness and justice so as to use religious values in productive economic behaviors, like the sharing risk and benefits in mutual agreements.The methodology of this study assesses the behavior of the subject pool (players representative of Muslims and non-Muslims) through the Ultimatum Game that was designed to test fairness and experiment in decision-making to measure fairness in economic transactions and to observe the level of religious-specific acceptance norms. This paper provides an actual behavioral investigation into how people (Muslims and non-Muslims) behave in real life, whether it is in accordance to what their religion prescribes to them or otherwise. In terms of fairness in contracting, non-Muslims performed a little bit better than Muslims but there were significant differences between the primed and unprimed subjects in the Muslim and non-Muslim groups where it was positive for the Muslim group and negative for the non-Muslim group.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mohamed, H. (2022). Investigating Fairness in Transactions: Evidence in Belief Systems. International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance (IJIEF), 1(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.18196/ijief.127
Issue
Vol. 1 No. 2 (2019): IJIEF Vol 1 (2), January 2019
Section
Articles

License 

This journal is based on the work available at http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ijief/ under a license from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
  • Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms, which include the following:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Hazik Mohamed, Stellar Consulting Group

Managing Director,

Stellar Consulting Group

References

Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism. Econometrica 70, 737–753.

Atiyah, P.S. (1985). Contract and Fair Exchange, University of Toronto Law Journal, 1.

Blake, P.R., and McAuliffe, K. (2011). “I Had So Much It Didn’t Seem Fair”: Eight-Year-Olds Reject Two Forms of Inequity. Cognition, 120, 215–224.

Blau, P. (1964). Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193–206.

Bloom, P. (2013). Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. Crown Publishing Group.

Boehm, C. (2008). Purposive Social Selection and the Evolution of Human Altruism. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 319 –352.

Bolton, G.E., Ockenfels, A. (2005). A Stress Test of Fairness Measures in Models of Social Utility. Econ Theory 25(4), 957–982.

Charness, G., Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117, 817–869.

Dana, J., Weber, R.A. and Kuang, J.X. (2007). Exploiting Moral Wiggle Room: Experiments Demonstrating an Illusory Preference for Fairness. Economic Theory, 33, 67–80.

Danuri, M., Suhaimi, M., Hussain, S.M., Mustaffa, N.E., Jaafar M.S. (2010). Growth of Dispute Avoidance Procedure in the Construction Industry: A Revisit and New Perspectives. Const. L. J., 26(5), 347-361.

De Cremer, D., and Sedikides, C. (2008). Reputational Implications of Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 66–75.

DiMatteo, L. A. (1995). The Norms of Contract: The Fairness Inquiry and the Law of Satisfaction-A Nonunified Theory, Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 24: Issue 2, Article 8.

Engelmann, D. and Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments. Am Econ Rev 94, 857–869.

Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation. Q J Econ 114, 817–868.

Fehr, E., Goette, L. and Zehnder, C. (2009). A Behavioral Account of the Labor Market: The Role of Fairness Concerns. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 355–384.

Fish, M. S. (2011). Are Muslims Distinctive? A Look at The Evidence. Oxford University Press.

Frankfurt, H. (2015). On Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Franzen, A. and Pointner, S. (2012). Anonymity in the Dictator Game Revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 74–81.

Habachy, S. (1962). Property, Right, and Contract in Muslim law. Columbia Law Review 62(3), 450-473.

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., and Gintis, H. (2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Kagel, J., Kim, C. and Moser, D. (1996). Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior, 13, 100–110.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. and Thaler, R. (1986) Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics. Journal of Business 59, 285–300.

Knack, S. and Keefer P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-country Investigation, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, No. 112, 1997, pp.1251–1288.

Li, K.J. and Jain, S. (2015). Behavior-Based Pricing: An Analysis of the Impact of Peer-Induced Fairness. Management Science, 62 (9), 2705-2721.

Palani, P. (2008). The Effect of Religiosity on Income Inequality, Journal of Politics and International Affairs, 61-70.

Rees, T.J. (2009). Is Personal Insecurity a Cause of Cross-National Differences in the Intensity of Religious Belief? Journal of Religion and Society, 11, 1-17.

Rothstein, B. and Uslaner, E. (2005). All for All: Equality and Social Trust, in: LSE Health and Social Care Discussion Paper, Number 15, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Sedikides, C., Hart, C.M. and De Cremer, D. (2008). The Self in Procedural Fairness Social and Personality, Psychology Compass 2/6, 2107–2124.

Shariff, A. and Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You: Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science 18, 803-809.

Shaw, A., DeScioli, P., and Olson, K.R. (2012). Fairness versus Favoritism in Children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 736–745.

Shaw, A., and Olson, K. R. (2012). Children Discard A Resource to Avoid Inequity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 382–395.

Simon, H. (1976). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. In Method and Appraisal in Economics, edited by Spiro J. Latsis, 129–48. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Tyler, T. R. (1994). Governing amid Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decision-making Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government. Law and Society Review, 28, 809–831

Weber, M. (1952). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner.

Wheeler, S.C. and Petty, R.E. (2001). The Effects of Stereotype Activation on Behavior: A Review of Possible Mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin 127(6), 797-826.