IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v57y1992i1p99-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Savagés theorem with a finite number of states

Author

Listed:
  • Gul, Faruk

Abstract

Conditions which guarantee the existence of a (subjective) expected utility representation of preferences, when the state space is finite, are presented. The key assumptions are continuity and an analogue of the independence axiom.

Suggested Citation

  • Gul, Faruk, 1992. "Savagés theorem with a finite number of states," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 99-110.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:57:y:1992:i:1:p:99-110
    DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0531(05)80042-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053105800420
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/S0022-0531(05)80042-0?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. Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Stigum, Bernt P, 1972. "Finite State Space and Expected Utility Maximization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(2), pages 253-259, March.
    3. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    4. Nakamura, Yutaka, 1990. "Subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities on finite state spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 346-366, August.
    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. Mingli Zheng & Sajid Anwar, 2005. "Rational Legal Decision-Making, Value Judgment, and Efficient Precaution in Tort Law," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(3), pages 411-427, September.

    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. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
    2. Diecidue, Enrico & Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "Parametric weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1102-1118, May.
    3. Mikhail Timonin, 2016. "Conjoint axiomatization of the Choquet integral for heterogeneous product sets," Papers 1603.08142, arXiv.org.
    4. Nakamura Y., 1996. "Rank dependent utility for arbitrary consequnce spaces," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-54, February.
    5. Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2001. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 864-890, November.
    6. Nakamura, Yutaka, 1995. "Probabilistically sophisticated rank dependent utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(3-4), pages 441-447, June.
    7. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    8. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    9. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    10. Werner, Jan, 2005. "A simple axiomatization of risk-averse expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 73-77, July.
    11. Szwagrzak, Karol, 2021. "Weighing Sample Evidence," Working Papers 3-2021, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    12. Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The sure-thing principle and the comonotonic sure-thing principle: An axiomatic analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 213-227.
    13. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Keiding, Hans, 2005. "Rawlsian maximin, Dutch books, and non-additive expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 239-251, November.
    14. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2021. "Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4310-4326, July.
    15. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    16. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    17. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Haliassos, Michael & Hassapis, Christis, 2001. "Non-expected Utility, Saving and Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 69-102, January.
    19. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    20. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.

    More about this item

    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:jetheo:v:57:y:1992:i:1:p:99-110. 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/622869 .

    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.