IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v40y2013i2p361-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating risk preferences in the presence of bifurcated wealth dynamics: can we identify static risk aversion amidst dynamic risk responses?

Author

Listed:
  • Travis J. Lybbert
  • David R. Just
  • Christopher B. Barrett

Abstract

Estimating risk preferences is tricky because controlling for confounding factors is difficult. Omitting or imperfectly controlling for these factors can attribute too much observable behaviour to risk aversion and bias estimated preferences. Agents often modify risky decisions in response to dynamic wealth or asset thresholds, where such thresholds exist. Ignoring this dynamic risk response introduces an attribution bias in static estimates of risk aversion. We demonstrate this pitfall using a simple model and a Monte Carlo simulation to explore the implications of this problem for empirical estimation. While an approach that jointly estimates risk preferences and wealth dynamics may remedy the problem by extracting dynamic risk responses from observed behaviour, it is likely to be challenging to implement in broader empirical settings for reasons we discuss. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Travis J. Lybbert & David R. Just & Christopher B. Barrett, 2013. "Estimating risk preferences in the presence of bifurcated wealth dynamics: can we identify static risk aversion amidst dynamic risk responses?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 361-377, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:40:y:2013:i:2:p:361-377
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbs027
    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. Buchholz, Matthias & Holst, Gesa & Musshoff, Oliver, 2015. "Water and irrigation policy impact assessment using business simulation games: evidence from northern Germany," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260781, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Takahashi, Kazushi & Ikegami, Munenobu & Sheahan, Megan & Barrett, Christopher B., 2016. "Experimental Evidence on the Drivers of Index-Based Livestock Insurance Demand in Southern Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 324-340.
    3. Buchholz, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver, 2014. "The role of weather derivatives and portfolio effects in agricultural water management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 34-44.
    4. Carpentier, Alain & Gohin, Alexandre & Sckokai, Paolo & Thomas, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 131-165, March.
    5. Piraino Patrizio, 2020. "Drivers of mobility," WIDER Working Paper Series wp2020-6, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Patrizio Piraino, 2020. "Drivers of mobility," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2020-6, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Matteo Giuliani & Andrea Castelletti, 2016. "Is robustness really robust? How different definitions of robustness impact decision-making under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 409-424, April.
    8. Jensen, Nathaniel D. & Mude, Andrew G. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2018. "How basis risk and spatiotemporal adverse selection influence demand for index insurance: Evidence from northern Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 172-198.
    9. Linden McBride & Leah Bevis, 2019. "Working Paper 311 - Risk, Returns, and Welfare," Working Paper Series 2437, African Development Bank.

    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:oup:erevae:v:40:y:2013:i:2:p:361-377. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.