Expected Utility as a Paradigm for Decision Making in Agriculture

  • Jack Meyer
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 23)


The assumption that a decision maker maximizes expected utility has been, and still is, a frequently employed model specification. This is true in economics and in agricultural economics. Decision models, where maximization of expected utility is the goal of the decision maker, have developed significantly during the forty or so years they have been in use. There now exists a substantial set of definitions, theorems, and empirical procedures available to those applying this paradigm. The goal of this chapter is to briefly describe the development of this expected utility (EU) decision model and to describe in some detail its current state.


Utility Function Risk Aversion Expect Utility Random Parameter Risk Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allais, M. 1953. “Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine.” Econometrica 21: 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R., J.L. Dillon, and J.B. Hardaker. 1977. Agricultural Decision Analysis. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K.J. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnsson in Saatio.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K.J. 1971. Essays in the Theory o Risk Bearing. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
  5. Baron, D. 1970. “Price Uncertainty, Utility, and Industry Equilibrium in Pure Competition.” International Economic Review 11: 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eeckhoudt, L., and C. Gollier. 1995. “Demand for Risky Assets and the Monotone Probability Ratio.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gollier, C. 1995. “The Comparative Statics of Changes in Risk Revisited.” Journal of Economic Theory 66: 522–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gollier, C., and J.W. Pratt. 1996. “Risk Vulnerability and the Tempering Effect of Background Risk.” Econometrica 64: 1109–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadar, J., and W.R. Russell. 1969. “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review 59: 25–34.Google Scholar
  10. Hanoch, G., and H. Levy. 1969. “Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies 38: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Just, R.E., and R.D. Pope. 1978. “Stochastic Specification of Production Functions and Economic Implications.” Journal of Econometrics 7: 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kimball, M. 1990. “Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 58: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimball, M. 1993. “Standard Risk Aversion.” Econometrica 61: 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, R.P., and L.J. Robison. 1981. “An Interval Approach to the Measurement of Decision”Google Scholar
  15. Maker Preferences. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 510–520.Google Scholar
  16. Landsberger, M., and I. Meilijson. 1990. “Demand for Risky Financial Assets: A Portfolio Analysis.” Journal of Economic Theory 50: 204–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leland, H. “Theory of the Firm Facing Uncertain Demand.” American Economic Review 62: 278–291.Google Scholar
  18. Machina, M. 1982. “`Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica 50: 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 1987.
    Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:121–154.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, J. 1977. “Choice Among Distributions.” Journal of Economic Theory 14: 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer, J., and M.B. Ormiston. 1989. “Deterministic Transformations of Random Variables and the Comparative Statics of Risk.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pope, R.D., and R.F. Ziemer. 1984. “Stochastic Efficiency, Normality, and Sampling Errors in Agricultural Risk Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pratt, J.W. 1964. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 32: 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pratt, J., and R.J. Zeckhauser. 1987. “Proper Risk Aversion.” Econometrica 55: 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quiggin, J. 1982. “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothschild, M., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1970. “Increasing Risk I: A Definition.” Journal of Economic Theory 2: 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rothschild, M., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1971. “Increasing Risk II: Its Consequences.” Journal of Economic Theory 3: 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandmo, A. 1971. “On the Theory of the Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty.” American Economic Review 61: 65–73.Google Scholar
  29. Savage, L. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Tobin, J. 1958. “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk.” Review of Economic Studies 25: 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Whitmore, G.A. 1970. “Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance.” American Economic Review 60: 457–459.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations