Modelos quantitativos de apoio as decisões: II

O sucesso da aplicação de técnicas de Análise das Decisões como apoio em problemas com um único objetivo predominante abriu caminho para estudos de problemas mais ambiciosos como os de decisões com multicritérios e decisões e de grupo (estes dois tipos utilizam metodologias muito semelhantes). Como evolução natural da Análise das Decisões, resultou a metodologia MAUT (Multi-Attribute Utility Theory). Seu rigorismo teórico torna as aplicações difíceis para um analista menos preparado. Como conseqüência, surgiu a metodologia AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) de utilização extremamente simples. A crítica ao AHP veio da escola européia que criou uma série de métodos conhecidos pela abreviação comum: MCDA (Multicriteria Decision Aid).

A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto Lakatoseano

The theory of the perspective and the changes of preference in the mainstream: a Lakatosean prospect. For many decades over the 20th Century, the mainstream of economics adopted a normative and axiomatic theory of individual behavior in which maximizing procedures were carried out by rationally unbounded agents. This status has been challenged on many grounds and alternative views from fields like psychology have found a way into the core of economics research frontier. Prospect theory, developed by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky since the 1970s, has provided a more empirical, inductive and descriptive theory of decision making. It has made significant inroads into mainstream microeconomics, shaking the habits of some of its practitioners. This paper first takes stock of its main developments and then uses a Lakatosian framework to draw out its negative and positive heuristics. In what follows, its heuristics are compared to those of traditional rational decision-making theories. The differences between them are highlighted, pointing to changes in the mainstream of the profession and to new opportunities for research.

Exploring the interplay between Framing and Securitization theory: the case of the Arab Spring protests in Bahrain

This article advances the theoretical integration between securitization theory and the framing approach, resulting in a set of criteria hereby called security framing. It seeks to make a twofold contribution: to sharpen the study of the ideational elements that underlie the construction of threats, and to advance towards a greater assessment of the audience's preferences. The case study under examination is the 2011 military intervention of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain. The security framing of this case will help illuminate the dynamics at play in one of the most important recent events in Gulf politics.