IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v102y1987i4p785-796..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Making Book Against Oneself," the Independence Axiom, and Nonlinear Utility Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Green

Abstract

An individual with known preferences over lotteries can be led to accept random wealth distributions different from his initial endowment by a sequential process in which some uncertainty is resolved and he is offered a new lottery in place of the remaining uncertainty. This paper examines the restrictions that can be placed on an individual's preferences by axioms that stipulate that such a process not be able to generate a new wealth distribution that is prima facie inferior to the original. The relationship of these axioms to the independence axiom of von Neumann and Morgenstern and to the quasi convexity of preferences in the wealth distribution are explored.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Green, 1987. ""Making Book Against Oneself," the Independence Axiom, and Nonlinear Utility Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(4), pages 785-796.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:102:y:1987:i:4:p:785-796.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1884281
    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. Just, David R. & Zilberman, David, 2005. "Behavior, Production and Competition," Working Papers 127075, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    2. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    3. Bergemann, Dirk & Pavan, Alessandro, 2015. "Introduction to Symposium on Dynamic Contracts and Mechanism Design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PB), pages 679-701.
    4. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 1998. "Intrinsic Preference for Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 233-259, December.
    5. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Discounted Expected Utility with a Disproportionate Preference for Certainty," NBER Working Papers 16348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Leeat Yariv & David Laibson, 2004. "Safety in Markets: An Impossibility Theorem for Dutch Books," 2004 Meeting Papers 867, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    7. Volij, Oscar, 2002. "A remark on bargaining and non-expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 17-24, September.
    8. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2006. "Investment behavior under ambiguity: The case of pessimistic decision makers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 111-130, September.
    9. Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005. "CEU preferences and dynamic consistency," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
    10. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    11. Alex Gershkov & Benny Moldovanu & Philipp Strack & Mengxi Zhang, 2023. "Optimal Insurance: Dual Utility, Random Losses and Adverse Selection," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 242, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    12. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    13. Leeat Yariv, 2004. "Safety in Markets: An Impossibility Theorem for Dutch Books," Theory workshop papers 658612000000000072, UCLA Department of Economics.
    14. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1990. "Utility Theory and Uncertainty," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275480, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2018. "Expected Utility Preferences versus Prospect Theory Preferences in Bargaining," MPRA Paper 89375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Anchored preference relations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 283-295, September.

    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:qjecon:v:102:y:1987:i:4:p:785-796.. 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://academic.oup.com/qje .

    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.