IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/insuma/v73y2017icp27-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A note on risky targets and effort

Author

Listed:
  • Wong, Kit Pong

Abstract

This note examines the effort choice problem of a decision maker (DM) who has to meet a target. The more the DM spends on effort, the more likely the target is reached. Besides the risk of missing the target despite his effort, the DM faces additional uncertainty in that both the target and the status quo are subject to exogenous shocks that are beyond the DM’s control. We consider two cases: the additive case in which the DM’s effort affects solely the likelihood of achieving the target, and the multiplicative case in which the DM’s effort also has direct effect on the target and the status quo. Using the theory of monotone comparative statics and risk apportionment, we derive sufficient conditions under which the DM spends more on effort when the target experiences an improvement in risk via higher-order stochastic dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • Wong, Kit Pong, 2017. "A note on risky targets and effort," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 27-30.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:insuma:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:27-30
    DOI: 10.1016/j.insmatheco.2017.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167668716301123
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2017.01.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Eeckhoudt & Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng, 2012. "Precautionary Effort: A New Look," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(2), pages 585-590, June.
    2. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    3. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Schlesinger, Harris & Tsetlin, Ilia, 2009. "Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 994-1003, May.
    4. Ekern, Steinar, 1980. "Increasing Nth degree risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 329-333.
    5. Caballe, Jordi & Pomansky, Alexey, 1996. "Mixed Risk Aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 485-513, November.
    6. Chuang, O-Chia & Eeckhoudt, Louis & Huang, Rachel J. & Tzeng, Larry Y., 2013. "Risky targets and effort," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 465-468.
    7. Milgrom, Paul & Shannon, Chris, 1994. "Monotone Comparative Statics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 157-180, January.
    8. Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis & Menegatti, Mario, 2016. "Changing risks and optimal effort," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 97-106.
    9. W. Chiu & Louis Eeckhoudt & Beatrice Rey, 2012. "On relative and partial risk attitudes: theory and implications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 151-167, May.
    10. Wong, Kit Pong, 2016. "Precautionary self-insurance-cum-protection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 152-156.
    11. Diego C. Nocetti, 2016. "Robust Comparative Statics of Risk Changes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1381-1392, May.
    12. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
    13. Jindapon, Paan & Neilson, William S., 2007. "Higher-order generalizations of Arrow-Pratt and Ross risk aversion: A comparative statics approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 719-728, September.
    14. Jianli Wang & Jingyuan Li, 2015. "Precautionary Effort: Another Trait for Prudence," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 82(4), pages 977-983, December.
    15. Donald M. Topkis, 1978. "Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 305-321, April.
    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. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.
    2. Crainich, David & Menegatti, Mario, 2021. "Self-protection with random costs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 63-67.
    3. Wang, Jianli & Wang, Hongxia & Yick, Ho Yin, 2019. "How do changes in risk and risk aversion affect self-protection with Selden/Kreps–Porteus preferences?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-6.
    4. Wong, Kit Pong, 2021. "Comparative risk aversion with two risks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Wong, Kit Pong, 2022. "Diversification and risk attitudes toward two risks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Desu Liu & Mario Menegatti, 2019. "Optimal saving and health prevention," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 177-191, October.
    7. Kit Pong Wong, 2019. "An interpretation of the condition for precautionary saving: the case of greater higher-order interest rate risk," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 275-286, April.

    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. Peter, Richard & Hofmann, Annette, 2024. "Precautionary risk-reduction and saving decisions: Two sides of the same coin?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 175-194.
    2. Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis & Menegatti, Mario, 2016. "Changing risks and optimal effort," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 97-106.
    3. Heinzel Christoph & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers SMART 21-09, INRAE UMR SMART.
    4. Wang, Jianli & Wang, Hongxia & Yick, Ho Yin, 2019. "How do changes in risk and risk aversion affect self-protection with Selden/Kreps–Porteus preferences?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-6.
    5. Christoph Heinzel & Richard Peter, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments [Motifs de précaution en cas de multiples instruments]," Working Papers hal-03484875, HAL.
    6. Heinzel, Christoph & Peter, Richard, 2021. "Precautionary motives with multiple instruments," Working Papers 316521, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    7. Paan Jindapon & Liqun Liu & William S. Neilson, 2021. "Comparative risk apportionment," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 91-112, April.
    8. Crainich, David & Menegatti, Mario, 2021. "Self-protection with random costs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 63-67.
    9. Wong, Kit Pong, 2016. "Precautionary self-insurance-cum-protection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 152-156.
    10. Heinzel, Christoph & Peter, Richard, 2023. "Precaution with multiple instruments: The importance of substitution effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 392-412.
    11. Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng & Lin Zhao, 2020. "Fractional Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4630-4647, October.
    12. Liqun Liu & William S. Neilson, 2019. "Alternative Approaches to Comparative n th-Degree Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3824-3834, August.
    13. Sebastian Ebert & Diego C. Nocetti & Harris Schlesinger, 2018. "Greater Mutual Aggravation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2809-2811, June.
    14. Chuang, O-Chia & Eeckhoudt, Louis & Huang, Rachel J. & Tzeng, Larry Y., 2013. "Risky targets and effort," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 465-468.
    15. Mario Menegatti, 2023. "A note on changes in additive risky benefits and risky costs," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 753-763, September.
    16. Diego C. Nocetti, 2016. "Robust Comparative Statics of Risk Changes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1381-1392, May.
    17. Peter, Richard, 2017. "Optimal self-protection in two periods: On the role of endogenous saving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 19-36.
    18. Mario Menegatti, 2018. "Prudence and Different Kinds of Prevention," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 44(2), pages 273-285, April.
    19. Loubergé, Henri & Malevergne, Yannick & Rey, Béatrice, 2020. "New Results for additive and multiplicative risk apportionment," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 140-151.
    20. Denuit, Michel M. & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2010. "Stronger measures of higher-order risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 2027-2036, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monotone comparative statics; Risk apportionment; Stochastic dominance; Effort; Risky targets;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk 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:eee:insuma:v:73:y:2017:i:c:p:27-30. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505554 .

    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.