Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 45–60 | Cite as

A Diamond-Stiglitz approach to the demand for self-protection

  • Donald J. Meyer
  • Jack Meyer
Article

Abstract

The existing research concerning the relationship between risk aversion and prudence and the demand for self-protection assumes that the loss variable follows a Bernoulli distribution, and that changes in the level of self-protection are mean preserving. The analysis here replaces these two very strong conditions with ones which are more general. When doing this, the method of analysis is also significantly modified. This modification includes representing a change in the level of self-protection using the procedure developed by Diamond and Stiglitz (Journal of Economic Theory 8:337-360, 1974) for representing a change in risk. This alternate representation allows the existing findings to be generalized considerably, and also simplifies the analysis.

Keywords

Self protection Prevention Risk aversion Prudence Decreasing risk aversion 

JEL Classification

D81 

References

  1. Briys, E., & Schlesinger, H. (1990). Risk aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu, W. H. (2000). On the propensity to self-protect. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 67, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu, W. H. (2005). Degree of downside risk aversion and self-protection. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 36, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diamond, P. A., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1974). Increases in risk and in risk aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 8, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dionne, G., & Eeckhoudt, L. (1985). Self-insurance, self-protection, and increased risk aversion. Economics Letters, 17, 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eeckhoudt, L., & Gollier, C. (2005). The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Economic Theory, 26, 989–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrlich, I., & Becker, G. S. (1972). Market insurance, self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Political Economy, 80, 623–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fishburn, P., & Vickson, R. G. (1978). Theoretical foundations of stochastic dominance. In G. A. Whitmore & M. C. Findlay (Eds.), Stochastic dominance: An approach to decision making under risk. Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Jullien, B., Salanie, B., & Salanie, F. (1999). Should more risk-averse agents exert more effort? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 24, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Menezes, C., Geiss, C., & Tressler, J. (1980). Increasing downside risk. American Economic Review, 70, 921–932.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, J. (2010). Representing risk preferences in expected utility based decision models. Annals of Operations Research, 176, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rothschild, M., & Stigitz, J. E. (1970). Increasing risk I: A definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Whitmore, G. A. (1970). Third degree stochastic dominance. American Economic Review, 60, 457–459.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations