IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-09-00175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism

Author

Listed:
  • André Lapied

    (Paul cézanne University, GREQAM and IDEP)

  • Pascal Toquebeuf

    (Paul Cézanne University and GREQAM)

Abstract

This note studies conditions which allow to maintain a non-expected utility representation (Max-min expected utility and Choquet expected utility), dynamic consistency and consequentialism in an atemporal and purely subjective framework. By contrast with a dynamic set-up, where consistency can be reached with non-expected utility models, we show that both Maxmin expected utility and Choquet expected utility degenerate into an expected utility representation.

Suggested Citation

  • André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1661-1669.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2010/Volume30/EB-10-V30-I2-P152.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Peter Klibanoff & Emre Ozdenoren, 1998. "Maximum Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Discussion Papers 1218, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2011. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences," Working Papers halshs-00856193, HAL.
    2. Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    3. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2013. "A note on “Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 439-445, March.
    4. Alex Stomper & Marie‐Louise Vierø, 2022. "Iterated expectations under rank‐dependent expected utility and implications for common valuation methods," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 739-763, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    2. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin expected utility through statewise combinations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 49-54, January.
    3. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    4. Alain Chateauneuf & Luciano De Castro, 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Absence of Trade," Discussion Papers 1535, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Pivato, Marcus & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2017. "Subjective expected utility representations for Savage preferences on topological spaces," MPRA Paper 77359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dong, Xueqi & Liu, Shuo Li, 2021. "Proportional Tax under Ambiguity," MPRA Paper 107668, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Thomas Breuer & Martin Summer, 2013. "Stress Test Robustness: Recent Advances and Open Problems," Financial Stability Report, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue 25, pages 74-86.
    8. Takao Asano, 2004. "Portfolio Inertia and [Epsilon]-Contaminations," ISER Discussion Paper 0610, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
    10. Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2003. "A Subjective Spin on Roulette Wheels," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1897-1908, November.
    11. Eisei Ohtaki, 2016. "Optimality of the Friedman rule under ambiguity," Working Papers e103, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    12. Mayumi Horie, 2007. "A General Update Rule for Convex Capacities," KIER Working Papers 644, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    13. Ozdenoren, Emre, 2002. "Completing the State Space with Subjective States," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 531-539, August.
    14. Qu, Xiangyu, 2013. "Maxmin expected utility with additivity on unambiguous events," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 245-249.
    15. Schnedler, Wendelin & Dominiak, Adam, 2008. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomization," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-39, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    16. Luciano Castro & Alain Chateauneuf, 2011. "Ambiguity aversion and trade," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 243-273, October.
    17. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    18. Takao Asano, 2004. "Portfolio Inertia under Ambiguity," ISER Discussion Paper 0609, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    19. Chambers, Robert G. & Melkonyan, Tigran, 2009. "Smoothing preference kinks with information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 173-189, September.
    20. Horie, Mayumi, 2013. "Reexamination on updating Choquet beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 467-470.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-expected utility; Choquet expected utility; Max-min expected utility; Dynamic consistency; Consequentialism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-09-00175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.