Uncertainty Aversion and Technical Barriers to Trade: An Australian Example

International Relations/Trade,

Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version

Economic theory reduces the concept of rationality to internal consistency. As far as beliefs are concerned, rationality is equated with having a prior belief over a “Grand State Space”, describing all possible sources of uncertainties. We argue that this notion is too weak in some senses and too strong in others. It is too weak because it does not distinguish between rational and irrational beliefs. Relatedly, the Bayesian approach, when applied to the Grand State Space, is inherently incapable of describing the formation of prior beliefs. On the other hand, this notion of rationality is too strong because there are many situations in which there is not sufficient information for an individual to generate a Bayesian prior. It follows that the Bayesian approach is neither sufficient not necessary for the rationality of beliefs.Decision making, Bayesian, Behavioral Economics

Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights

To accommodate the observed pattern of risk-aversion and risk-seeking, as well as common violations of expected utility (e.g., the certainty effect), we introduce and characterize a weighting function according to which an event has greater impact when it turns impossibility into possibility, or possibility into certainty, that when it merely makes a possibility more or less likely. We show how to compare such weighting functions (of different individuals) with respect to the degree of departure from expected utility, and we present a method for comparing an individual's weighting functions for risk and for uncertainty

Ambiguity preferences for health

In most medical decisions, probabilities are ambiguous and not objectively known. Empirical evidence suggests that people's preferences are affected by ambiguity. Health economic analyses generally ignore ambiguity preferences and assume that they are the same as preferences under risk. We show how health preferences can be measured under ambiguity, and we compare them with health preferences under risk. We assume a general ambiguity model that includes many of the ambiguity models that have been proposed in the literature. For health gains, ambiguity preferences and risk preferences were indeed the same. For health losses, they differed with subjects being more pessimistic in decision under ambiguity. Utility and loss aversion were the same for risk and ambiguity. Our results imply that reducing the clinical ambiguity of health losses has more impact than reducing the ambiguity of health gains, that utilities elicited with known probabilities may not carry over to an ambiguous setting, and that ambiguity aversion may impact value of information analyses if losses are involved. These findings are highly relevant for medical decision making, because most medical interventions involve losses

Attitude toward imprecise information

This paper presents an axiomatic model of decision making under uncertainty which incorporates objective but imprecise information. Information is assumed to take the form of a probability-possibility set, that is, a set $P$ of probability measures on the state space. The decision maker is told that the true probability law lies in $P$ and is assumed to rank pairs of the form $(P,f)$ where $f$ is an act mapping states into outcomes. The key representation result delivers maxmin expected utility where the min operator ranges over a set of probability priors --just as in the maxmin expected utility (MEU) representation result of \cite{GILB/SCHM/89}. However, unlike the MEU representation, the representation here also delivers a mapping, $\varphi$, which links the probability-possibility set, describing the available information, to the set of revealed priors. The mapping $\varphi$ is shown to represent the decision maker's attitude to imprecise information: under our axioms, the set of representation priors is constituted as a selection from the probability-possibility set. This allows both expected utility when the selected set is a singleton and extreme pessimism when the selected set is the same as the probability-possibility set, i.e. , $\varphi$ is the identity mapping. We define a notion of comparative imprecision aversion and show it is characterized by inclusion of the sets of revealed probability distributions, irrespective of the utility functions that capture risk attitude. We also identify an explicit attitude toward imprecision that underlies usual hedging axioms. Finally, we characterize, under extra axioms, a more specific functional form, in which the set of selected probability distributions is obtained by (i) solving for the ``mean value'' of the probability-possibility set, and (ii) shrinking the probability-possibility set toward the mean value to a degree determined by preferences.Imprecise information; imprecision aversion; multiple priors; Steiner point

Theoretical and experimental investigation of explanations for the Ellsberg Paradox.

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DXN019805 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The Harsanyi-Rawls debate: political philosophy as decision theory under uncertainty

Social decisions are often made under great uncertainty – in situations where political principles, and even standard subjective expected utility, do not apply smoothly. In the first section, we argue that the core of this problem lies in decision theory itself – it is about how to act when we do not have an adequate representation of the context of the action and of its possible consequences. Thus, we distinguish two criteria to complement decision theory under ignorance – Laplace’s principle of insufficient reason and Wald’s maximin criterion. After that, we apply this analysis to political philosophy, by contrasting Harsanyi’s and Rawls’s theories of justice, respectively based on Laplace’s principle of insufficient reason and Wald’s maximin rule – and we end up highlighting the virtues of Rawls’s principle on practical grounds (it is intuitively attractive because of its computational simplicity, so providing a salient point for convergence) – and connect this argument to our moral intuitions and social norms requiring prudence in the case of decisions made for the sake of other