The impact of ambiguity and prudence on prevention decisions
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Loïc Berger
- 关键词：Non ; expected utility ; Self ; protection ; Self ; insurance ; Ambiguity ; Prudence
- 刊名：Theory and Decision
- 出版年：2016
- 出版时间：March 2016
- 年：2016
- 卷：80
- 期：3
- 页码：389-409
- 全文大小：538 KB
- 参考文献：Alary, D., Gollier, C., & Treich, N. (2013). The effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and self-protection. The Economic Journal, 123, 1188–1202.CrossRef
Berger, L. (2011). Smooth ambiguity aversion in the small and in the large. Working Papers ECARES 2011-020, ULB—Université libre de Bruxelles.
Berger, L. (2014). Precautionary saving and the notion of ambiguity prudence. Economics Letters, 123(2), 248–251.CrossRef
Courbage, C., Rey, B., & Treich, N. (2013). Prevention and precaution. In Handbook of insurance, pp. 185–204. Springer.
Eeckhoudt, L., & Gollier, C. (2005). The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Economic Theory, 26(4), 989–994.CrossRef
Ehrlich, I., & Becker, G. (1972). Market insurance, self-insurance, and self-protection. The Journal of Political Economy, 80(4), 623–648.CrossRef
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRef
Etner, J., Jeleva, M., & Tallon, J.-M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(2), 234–270.CrossRef
Etner, J., & Spaeter, S. (2010). The impact of ambiguity on health prevention and insurance. Working Papers of BETA 2010-08, Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
Gierlinger, J. & Gollier, C. (2008). Socially efficient discounting under ambiguity aversion. Working Paper.
Gilboa, I. & Marinacci, M. (2011). Ambiguity and the bayesian paradigm. In Advances in economics and econometrics, tenth world congress, Volume 1.
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18(2), 141–154.CrossRef
Gollier, C. (2001). The Economics of Risk and Time. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
IPCC (2007). Framing Issues. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (Eds.)] Cambridge University PressCambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Field, C. B. and Barros, V. R. and Dokken, D. J. and Mach, K. J. and Mastrandrea, M. D. and Bilir, T. E. and Chatterjee, M., and Ebi, KL and Estrada, YO and Genova, RC and others]. Cambridge, UK/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (2014b). Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J. C. Minx (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRef
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2009). Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(3), 930–976.CrossRef
Kreps, D., & Porteus, E. (1978). Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica, 46(1), 185–200.CrossRef
Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., & Ruffino, D. (2013). Alpha as ambiguity: Robust mean-variance portfolio analysis. Econometrica, 81(3), 1075–1113.CrossRef
Menegatti, M. (2009). Optimal prevention and prudence in a two-period model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 58(3), 393–397.CrossRef
Meyer, D. J., & Meyer, J. (2011). A diamond-stiglitz approach to the demand for self-protection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42(1), 45–60.CrossRef
Savage, L. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics (p. 1972). New York: J. Wiley. second revised edition.
Selden, L. (1978). A new representation of preferences over “certain x uncertain” consumption pairs: The “ordinal certainty equivalent” hypothesis. Econometrica, 46(5), 1045–1060.CrossRef
Snow, A. (2011). Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 27–43.CrossRef
Trautmann, S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2013). Ambiguity attitudes. Prepared for the Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, edited by Gideon Keren and George Wu, Tilburg University. - 作者单位：Loïc Berger (1)
1. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Corso Magenta 63, 20123, Milan, Italy - 刊物类别：Business and Economics
- 刊物主题：Economics
Economic Theory
Game Theory and Mathematical Methods
Game Theory, Economics, Social and Behavioral Sciences
Methodology of the Social Sciences
Operation Research and Decision Theory - 出版者：Springer Netherlands
- ISSN：1573-7187
文摘
Most decisions concerning (self-)insurance and self-protection have to be taken in situations in which (a) the effort exerted precedes the moment uncertainty realizes, and (b) the probabilities of future states of the world are not perfectly known. By integrating these two characteristics in a simple theoretical framework, this paper derives plausible conditions under which ambiguity aversion raises the demand for (self-)insurance and self-protection. In particular, it is shown that in most usual situations where the level of ambiguity does not increase with the level of effort, a simple condition of ambiguity prudence known as decreasing absolute ambiguity aversion (DAAA) is sufficient to give a clear and positive answer to the question: Does ambiguity aversion raise the optimal level of effort?