IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Knightian View

Author

Abstract

Stimulated by Frank Knight's work, "Risk, Uncertainty and Profit," I present a theory of innovation based on what I term Knightian decision theory. This theory includes a concept of uncertainty aversion, a behavioral property that makes people reluctant to undertake new unevaluatable risks. This aversion is compounded when individuals are obliged to cooperate in undertaking risks. The theory leads directly to the conclusion that innovation in business is the natural domain of individual investors with unusually low levels of uncertainty aversion. Also, it should be difficult to innovate new markets for insurance of unevaluatable risks, for the success of a new market requires that many people overcome their aversion to uncertainty and enter the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Truman F. Bewley, 1989. "Market Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Knightian View," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 905, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    • Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d09/d0905.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jean-Marc Bonnisseau & Lalaina Rakotonindrainy, 2015. "A note on the characterization of optimal allocations in OLG models with multiple goods," Post-Print halshs-01158117, HAL.
    2. Luca David Opromolla & Michele Dell'Era, 2018. "A General Equilibrium Theory of Occupational Choice under Optimistic Beliefs about Entrepreneurial Ability," Working Papers w201822, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    3. Rigotti, L., 1998. "Imprecise Beliefs in a Principal Agent Model," Discussion Paper 1998-128, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Rigotti, Luca & Shannon, Chris, 2011. "Knightian uncertainty and moral hazard," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1148-1172, May.
    5. Nascimento, Leandro & Riella, Gil, 2011. "A class of incomplete and ambiguity averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 728-750, March.
    6. Héctor Salgado-Banda, 2007. "Entrepreneurship And Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(01), pages 3-29.
    7. Luciano Castro & Alain Chateauneuf, 2011. "Ambiguity aversion and trade," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 243-273, October.
    8. Strzalecki, Tomasz & Werner, Jan, 2011. "Efficient allocations under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1173-1194, May.
    9. Chambers, Robert G., 2014. "Uncertain equilibria and incomplete preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 48-54.
    10. Leandro Nascimento, 2011. "Remarks on the consumer problem under incomplete preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 95-110, January.
    11. Feduzi, Alberto & Runde, Jochen, 2011. "The uncertain foundations of the welfare state," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 613-627.
    12. Hill, Brian, 2016. "Incomplete preferences and confidence," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 83-103.
    13. Luca Rigotti & Matthew Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2011. "Optimism and firm formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(1), pages 1-38, January.
    14. Kin Chung Lo, 1998. "Epistemic Conditions for Agreement and Stochastic Independence of epsilon-Contaminated Beliefs," Working Papers 1998_02, York University, Department of Economics.
    15. Lo, Kin Chung, 2000. "Epistemic conditions for agreement and stochastic independence of [epsi]-contaminated beliefs," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 207-234, March.

    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:cwl:cwldpp:905. 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: Brittany Ladd (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cowleus.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.