IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hid/journl/v24y201616p105-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Keynes–Knight and the de Finetti–Savage's Approaches to Probability: An Economic Interpretation

Author

Listed:
  • Rogério Arthmar

    (Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - Department of Economics)

  • Michael Emmett Brady

    (California State University - Department of Operations Management)

Abstract

The definition of ‘uncertainty’ proposed by Bruno de Finetti and Leonard J. Savage is significantly different from the one advanced by J. M. Keynes and Frank H. Knight. Recent studies seem to have overlooked this aspect of de Finetti and Savage’s 1962 paper "Sul Modo di Scegliere le Probabilità Iniziali". This particular work has been cited as supporting the claim that there are similarities between the de Finetti-Savage’s conception of uncertainty and the Keynes-Knight’s approach. This claim, however, loses much of its appeal once it is realized that the discussion by de Finetti and Savage involves only the initial probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Rogério Arthmar & Michael Emmett Brady, 2016. "The Keynes–Knight and the de Finetti–Savage's Approaches to Probability: An Economic Interpretation," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 24(1), pages 105-124.
    • Handle: RePEc:hid:journl:v:24:y:2016:1:6:p:105-124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.libraweb.net/articoli.php?chiave=201606101&rivista=61
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rog?rio Arthmar & Michael Emmett Brady, 2018. "Boole, Ramsey and the Keynes-Townshend exchanges on subjective probability," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(2), pages 55-74.

    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:hid:journl:v:24:y:2016:1:6:p:105-124. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Mario Aldo Cedrini (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.libraweb.net .

    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.