IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00150931.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incertitude scientifique et décision publique: le recours au Principe de Précaution

Author

Listed:
  • Tania Bouglet

    (GEM - Groupe d'économie mondiale - Sciences Po - Sciences Po)

  • Thomas Lanzi

    (ESC Lille - School of management - Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Lille)

  • Jean-Christophe Vergnaud

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In this paper, we formalize two criteria of decisions which try to convey two different interpretations of the Precautionary principle. The first criterion corresponds to the maximization of the minimum of the expected utility whereas the second criterion corresponds to the minimization of the maximum of the regret expectation. We apply those two criteria in an economic problem where uncertainty is assessed by a family of probabilities. We show that there is a distance of probabilities for which the choices induced by the two criteria are different. Especially, we show that in this case, the second criterion always induces the more cautious decision contrary to the first criterion, decisions are the same elsewhere.

Suggested Citation

  • Tania Bouglet & Thomas Lanzi & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "Incertitude scientifique et décision publique: le recours au Principe de Précaution," Post-Print halshs-00150931, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00150931
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00150931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00150931/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gajdos, Thibault & Tallon, Jean-Marc & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe, 2004. "Decision making with imprecise probabilistic information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 647-681, September.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    3. Olivier Godard, 2003. "Le principe de précaution comme norme de l'action publique, ou la proportionnalité en question," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 54(6), pages 1245-1276.
    4. Gollier, Christian & Jullien, Bruno & Treich, Nicolas, 2000. "Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the 'Precautionary Principle'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 229-253, February.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    6. Claude HENRY & Marc HENRY, 2002. "Formalization and Applications of the Precuationary Principle," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2002009, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1987. "Some implications of a more general form of regret theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-287, April.
    8. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    9. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    10. Christian Gollier, 2001. "Should we beware of the Precautionary Principle?," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 16(33), pages 302-327.
    11. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    12. Morgane Chevé & Ronan Congar, 2003. "La gestion des risques environnementaux en présence d'incertitudes et de controverses scientifiques. Une interprétation du principe de précaution," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 54(6), pages 1335-1352.
    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. Meglena Jeleva & Stéphane Rossignol, 2019. "Optimists, Pessimists, and the Precautionary Principle," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 367-396, 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. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    2. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton, 2006. "De l'aversion à l'ambiguïté aux attitudes face à l'ambiguïté. Les apports d'une perspective psychologique en économie," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 259-280.
    3. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    4. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    5. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    6. Qin, Jie, 2015. "A model of regret, investor behavior, and market turbulence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 150-174.
    7. Dirk Bergemann & Karl Schlag, 2012. "Robust Monopoly Pricing," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 13, pages 417-441, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    9. W. Botzen & Jeroen Bergh, 2014. "Specifications of Social Welfare in Economic Studies of Climate Policy: Overview of Criteria and Related Policy Insights," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 1-33, May.
    10. Faro, José Heleno, 2015. "Variational Bewley preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 699-729.
    11. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    12. Giordani, Paolo E. & Schlag, Karl H. & Zwart, Sanne, 2010. "Decision makers facing uncertainty: Theory versus evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 659-675, August.
    13. Elard, Ilaf, 2020. "Three-player sovereign debt negotiations," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 217-240.
    14. Basili, Marcello & Chateauneuf, Alain & Fontini, Fulvio, 2008. "Precautionary principle as a rule of choice with optimism on windfall gains and pessimism on catastrophic losses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 485-491, October.
    15. Aditi Bhattacharyya, 2018. "Median-based Rules for Decision-making under Complete Ignorance," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 6(1-2), pages 1-13, June.
    16. Heydari, Pedram, 2024. "Regret, responsibility, and randomization: A theory of stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    17. Tapiero, Charles S., 2005. "Value at risk and inventory control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(3), pages 769-775, June.
    18. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Daniel Krähmer & Rebecca Stone, 2013. "Anticipated regret as an explanation of uncertainty aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 52(2), pages 709-728, March.
    20. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 19-48, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public decision; precautionary; décision publique; information; précaution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00150931. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.