Ordering Risky Choices

  • Lindon J. Robison
  • Robert J. Myers
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 23)

Abstract

This chapter connects assumptions about probability distributions, decision makers’ risk attitudes, and the resulting methods used to order risky choices. The methods we discuss are consistent with the expected utility hypothesis because up to this point in time no alternative for decision making under risk has gained widespread acceptance.

Keywords

Decision Maker Risk Attitude Risk Preference Stochastic Dominance Weak Assumption 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hadar, J., and W.R. Russell. 1969. “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review 59: 25–34.Google Scholar
  2. Hanoch, G., and H. Levy. 1969. “Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies 38: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kimball, M. 1993. “Standard Risk Aversion.” Economnetrica 61: 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. King, R., and L. Robison. 1981. “An Interval Approach to Measuring Decision Maker Preferences.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 510–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kramer, R.A., and R.D. Pope. 1981. “Participation in Farm Commodity Programs: A Stochastic Dominance Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Meyer, D.J., and J. Meyer. 2001. “Habit Formation Utility, the Equity Premium Puzzle, and Risk Preferences in Multi-Period Consumption Models.” Draft Working Paper (January).Google Scholar
  7. Meyer, J. 1977. “Choice Among Distributions.” Journal of Economic Theory 14: 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meyer, J. 1987. “Two Moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization.” American Economic Review 77: 421–430.Google Scholar
  9. Meyer, J., and R.H. Rasche. 1992. “Sufficient Conditions for Expected Utility to Imply Mean-Standard Deviation Rankings: Empirical Evidence Concerning the Location and Scale Condition.” The Economic Journal 102: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Robison, L.J., and P.J. Barry. 1987. The Competitive Firm’s Response to Risk. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Robison, L.J., and L. Lev. 1986. “Distinguishing Between Indirect and Direct Outcome Variables to Predict Choices Under Risk or Why Woody Chip Went to the Air.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 8: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rothschild, M., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1971. “Increasing Risk II: Its Economic Consequences.” Journal of Economic Theory 2: 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sinn, H.-W. 1983. Economic Decisions Under Uncertainty. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindon J. Robison
    • 1
  • Robert J. Myers
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations