The Preservation of Comparative Statics under Uncertainty

  • Edward E. Schlee
Part of the Theory and Decision Library book series (TDLB, volume 40)


Comparative statics under uncertainty often differ dramatically from comparative statics under certainty. Under certainty, fixed costs that are sunk don’t affect supply. Sandmo (1971), however, showed that, if a finn fazes price uncertainty and is risk averse, then changes in fixed costs can affect its supply. Under certainty, input demands slope downward in own prices. Batra and Ullah (1974) however, showed that, if the finn faces price uncertainty and is risk averse, input demands might slope upward. Under certainty, either increasing the rate of return of an asset or decreasing its price trivially never decreases its demand (when other assets are present). Fishburn and Porter (1976) showed that increasing the rate of return of a safe asset in the presence of other risky assets might lead to lower demand for the safe asset, whereas Cheng, Magill and Shafer (1987) showed that increasing the price of a risky asset could raise its demand. In each case, the comparative statics result is preserved if the agent is assumed risk neutral, or if restrictions are imposed upon risk preferences.


Optimal Portfolio Risky Asset Risk Averse Output Price Initial Wealth 
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. Batra, R. and A. Ullah, “Competitive Firm and the Theory of Input Demand under Uncertainty. ” Journal of Political Economy 82 (1974): 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheng, H., M. Magill and W. Shafer, “Some Results on Comparative Statics Under Uncertainty,” International Economic Review 28 (1987): 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fishburn, P. and Porter, B., “Optimal Portfolios with One Safe and One Risky Asset: Effects of Changes in Rate of Return and Risk,” Management Science 22 (1976): 1064–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gollier, C., “The Comparative Statics of Changes in Risk Revisited,” Journal of Economic Theory 66 (1995): 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gollier, C. and E. Schlee, “Increased Risk Taking with Multiple Risk,” (1997) working paper.Google Scholar
  6. Hadar, J. and W. Russell, “Applications in Economic Theory and Analysis,” in Stochastic Dominance (G. Whitmore and M. Findlay, Eds.), Chap. 7, Lexington Books, Lexington MA, 1978.Google Scholar
  7. Hadar, J. and K. Seo. “The Effect of Shifts in a Return Distribution on Optimal Portfolios,” International Economic Review 31 (1990): 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jewitt, L “Risk Aversion and the Choice Between Risky Prospects: The Preservation of Comparative Statics Results,” Review of Economic Studies 54 (1987): 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kimball, M. “Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica 58 (1990): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leland, H. “Saving and Uncertainty: The Precautionary Demand for Saving” Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (1968): 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milgrom, P. “Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications,” Bell Journal of Economics 12 (1981): 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Milgrom, P. and Shannon, C. “Monotone Comparative Statics,” Econometrica 62 (1994): 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ormiston, M. and J. Meyer “The Effect on Optimal Portfolios of Changing the Return to a Risky Asset: The Case of Dependent Returns,” International Economic Review 35 (1994): 603–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ormiston, M.. and E. Schlee, “Necessary Conditions for Comparative Statics Under Uncertainty,” Economics Letters 40 (1992): 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ormiston, M.. and E. Schlee, “Comparative Statics Under Uncertainty for a Class of Economic Agents,” Journal of Economic Theory 61 (1993): 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandmo, A. “On the Theory of the Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty,” American Economic Review 61 (1971): 65–73.Google Scholar
  17. Schlee, E. “Multivariate Risk Aversion and Consumer Choice,” International Economic Review 30 (1990): 737–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward E. Schlee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsArizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations