Extreme inequality aversion without separability

Hammond (J Econ Theory 11, 465–467, 1975), Meyer (J Econ Theory 11, 119–132, 1975), and Lambert (The distribution and redistribution of income Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2001) provide the formal result connecting leximin and the idea of extreme inequality aversion for social preferences of the expected utility type. Using an analogous approach, we show that for social preferences not necessarily satisfying the separability axiom that underlies expected utility theory, the case of extreme inequality aversion is covered by the class of weakly maximin social preferences—i.e., the class of social preferences that give priority to the worst off in all cases in which the worst off is not indifferent. I wish to thank Bart Capéau, Frank Cowell, Peter Lambert, Luc Lauwers, Erik Schokkaert, Frans Spinnewyn, and Bertil Tungodden for valuable comments. Remaining shortcomings are mine. Financial support from the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders (grant G.0005.04) and the Interuniversity Attraction Poles network funded by the Federal Public Planning Service, Belgian Science Policy (grant P5/21-A) is gratefully acknowledged.     

The impossibility of compromise: some uniqueness properties of expected utility preferences

Summary. We focus on the following uniqueness property of expected utility preferences: Agreement of two preferences on one interior indifference class implies their equality. We show that, besides expected utility preferences under (objective) risk, this uniqueness property holds for subjective expected utility preferences in Anscombe-Aumann's (partially subjective) and Savage's (fully subjective) settings, while it does not hold for subjective expected utility preferences in settings without rich state spaces. Indeed, when it holds the uniqueness property is even stronger than described above, as it needs only agreement on binary acts. The extension of the uniqueness property to the subjective case is possible because beliefs in the mentioned settings are shown to satisfy an analogous property: If two decision makers agree on a likelihood indifference class, they must have identical beliefs. Received: November 15, 1999; revised version: December 29, 1999     

Eliciting the core of a supermodular capacity

Summary. The paper utilizes duality theory to derive an exact representation of the core of a supermodular capacity for finite-state-space Choquet expected utility preferences. Using the dual representation we develop an algorithm that uses information on willingness to pay and willingness to sell to elicit a supermodular capacity in a finite number of iterations.Received: 21 February 2003, Revised: 26 May 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D81. Correspondence to: Robert G. ChambersThe authors thank J. Quiggin and an anonymous referee for comments that improved the paper.     

Proper scoring rules for general decision models

If a decision maker whose behavior conforms to the max-min expected utility model is faced with a scoring rule for a subjective expected utility decision maker, she will always announce a probability belonging to her set of priors; moreover, for any prior in the set, there is a scoring rule inducing the agent to announce that prior. We also show that on the domain of Choquet expected utility preferences with risk neutral lottery evaluation and totally monotone capacities, proper scoring rules do not exist. This implies the non-existence of proper scoring rules for any larger class of preferences (CEU with convex capacities, multiple priors).     

Dynamic variational preferences

We introduce and axiomatize dynamic variational preferences, the dynamic version of the variational preferences we axiomatized in [F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, A. Rustichini, Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences, Mimeo, 2004], which generalize the multiple priors preferences of Gilboa and Schmeidler [Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153], and include the Multiplier Preferences inspired by robust control and first used in macroeconomics by Hansen and Sargent (see [L.P. Hansen, T.J. Sargent, Robust control and model uncertainty, Amer. Econ. Rev. 91 (2001) 60-66]), as well as the classic Mean Variance Preferences of Markovitz and Tobin. We provide a condition that makes dynamic variational preferences time consistent, and their representation recursive. This gives them the analytical tractability needed in macroeconomic and financial applications. A corollary of our results is that Multiplier Preferences are time consistent, but Mean Variance Preferences are not.     

Background risk in generalized expected utility theory

Summary. In this paper, it is shown that, for a wide range of risk-averse generalized expected utility preferences, independent risks are complementary, contrary to the results for expected utility preferences satisfying conditions such as proper and standard risk aversion. Received: August 10, 2001; revised version: June 18, 2002 RID="*" ID="*"I thank Simon Grant and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and criticism. This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Senior Fellowship and Australian Research Council Large Grant A79800678.     

Range convexity and ambiguity averse preferences

We show that range convexity of beliefs, a `technical' condition that appears naturally in axiomatizations of preferences in a Savage-like framework, imposes some unexpected restrictions when modelling ambiguity averse preferences. That is, when it is added to a mild condition, range convexity makes the preferences collapse to subjective expected utility as soon as they satisfy structural conditions that are typically used to characterize ambiguity aversion. Received: February 25, 2000; revised version: April 17, 2000     

Correlated Nash equilibrium

We modify the epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium only to accommodate Gilboa and Schmeidler's [I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with nonunique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153] maxmin expected utility preferences, and identify the equilibrium concept in n-player strategic games that characterizes the modified epistemic conditions. The epistemic characterization supports the equilibrium concept as a minimal generalization of Nash equilibrium, in the sense that it deviates from Nash equilibrium only in terms of players' attitude towards ambiguity. Consequently, comparing it with Nash equilibrium constitutes a ceteris paribus study of the effects of ambiguity on how a game is played. For example, with ambiguity, (beliefs about) action choices are in general correlated.     

Trembles in extensive games with ambiguity averse players

We introduce and analyze three definitions of equilibrium for finite extensive games with imperfect information and ambiguity averse players. In a setting where players’ preferences are represented by maxmin expected utility, as characterized in Gilboa and Schmeidler (J Math Econ 18(2):141–153, 1989), our definitions capture the intuition that players may consider the possibility of slight arbitrary mistakes. This generalizes the idea leading to trembling-hand perfect equilibrium as introduced in Selten (Int J Game Theory 4(1):25–55, 1975), by allowing for ambiguous trembles characterized by sets of distributions. We prove existence for two of our equilibrium notions and relate our definitions to standard equilibrium concepts with expected utility maximizing players. Our analysis shows that ambiguity aversion can lead to behavioral implications that are distinct from those attained under expected utility maximization, even if ambiguous beliefs only arise from the possibility of slight mistakes in the implementation of unambiguous strategies.     

Diversification, convex preferences and non-empty core in the Choquet expected utility model

Summary. We show, in the Choquet expected utility model, that preference for diversification, that is, convex preferences, is equivalent to a concave utility index and a convex capacity. We then introduce a weaker notion of diversification, namely “sure diversification.” We show that this implies that the core of the capacity is non-empty. The converse holds under concavity of the utility index, which is itself equivalent to the notion of comonotone diversification, that we introduce. In an Anscombe-Aumann setting, preference for diversification is equivalent to convexity of the capacity and preference for sure diversification is equivalent to non-empty core. In the expected utility model, all these notions of diversification are equivalent and are represented by the concavity of the utility index. Received: July 27, 1999; revised version: November 7, 2000     

Stationary cardinal utility and optimal growth under uncertainty

In the literature on multiperiod planning under uncertainty, it is generally postulated that preferences may be represented by a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index that is additive over time. This paper accomplishes two objectives: First, an axiomatic basis is provided for a more general class of non-additive utility indices defined over infinite consumption streams. Second, this class of utility functions is applied to extend existing results (J. Econ. Theory4 (1972), 479–513; J. Econ. Theory11 (1975), 329–339) on the nature of optimal growth under uncertainty. Of particular interest are the existence and stability of a stochastic steady state.     

Option price without expected utility

We consider the meaning of the option price, commonly acknowledged as the preferred ex ante welfare measure, in the rank-dependent expected utility (RDEU) framework. The importance of this pertains to performing benefit-cost analysis when RDEU maximizers are prevalent in society.     

Theories of choice under risk: Insights from financial markets

To date, the plausibility of theories of choice under risk hinges are mainly on experimental evidence. This paper devises and implements an approach amenable of assessing the performance of three families of models (expected utility, rank-dependent expected utility, and the cumulative prospect theory) using information from financial asset markets. Our findings unequivocally support reference-point dependence, diminishing marginal sensitivity, loss aversion, and nonlinear weighting of (gain and loss) physical probabilities. The empirical observations are found to be robust to, inter alia, the parameterization of the utility and probability weighting functions, “day-of-the-week effects”, the choice of a reference point, and the introduction of possible, low-probability market crashes (peso component).     

Cournot–Nash equilibria in continuum games with non-ordered preferences

In the usual framework of continuum games with externalities, we substantially generalize Cournot–Nash existence results [Balder, A unifying approach to existence of Nash equilibria, Int. J.Game Theory 24 (1995) 79–94; On the existence of Cournot–Nash equilibria in continuum games, J. Math. Econ. 32 (1999) 207–223; A unifying pair of Cournot–Nash equilibrium existence results, J. Econ. Theory 102 (2002) 437–470] to games with possibly non-ordered preferences, providing a continuum analogue of the seminal existence results by Mas-Colell [An equilibrium existence theorem without complete or transitive preferences, J. Math. Econ. 1 (1974) 237–246], Gale and Mas-Colell [An equilibrium existence theorem for a general model without ordered preferences, J. Math. Econ. 2 (1975) 9–15], Shafer and Sonnenschein [Equilibrium in abstract economies without ordered preferences, J. Math. Econ. 2 (1975) 345–348], Borglin and Keiding [Existence of equilibrium actions and of equilibrium: a note on the “new” existence theorems, J. Math. Econ. 3 (1976) 313–316] and Yannelis and Prabhakar [Existence of maximal elements and equilibria in linear topological spaces, J. Math. Econ. 12 (1983) 233–245].     

Subgame-perfect implementation of bargaining solutions

We study house allocation problems introduced by L. Shapley and H. Scarf (1974, J. Math. Econ.1, 23–28). We prove that a mechanism (a social choice function) is individually rational, anonymous, strategy-proof, and nonbossy (but not necessarily Pareto efficient) if and only if it is either the core mechanism or the no-trade mechanism, where the no-trade mechanism is the one that selects the initial allocation for each profile of preferences. This result confirms the intuition that even if we are willing to accept inefficiency, there exists no interesting strategy-proof mechanism other than the core mechanism. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71, C78, D71, D78, D89.     

Cobb-Douglas preferences under uncertainty

This paper axiomatizes Cobb-Douglas preferences under uncertainty. First, we extend the original Trockel (Econ Lett 30:7–10, 1989)’s axiomatic foundation to a general state space framework based on the Strong Homotheticity Axiom, obtaining also the incomplete case a la Bewley (Decis Econ Financ 25:79–110, 2002). We show that this key axiom for the Cobb-Douglas expected utility specification is refuted by Ellsberg’s uncertainty aversion behavioral pattern. Our main result provides a set of meaningful axioms characterizing Cobb-Douglas min-expected utility preferences, an important class of uncertainty averse preferences for studying the consequences of ambiguity in finance and other fields. Finally, we present briefly how to obtain more general representations like the variational case.     

Overlapping expectations and Hart's conditions for equilibrium in a securities model

Hart (J. Econ. Theory9 (1974), 293–311) gave conditions for equilibrium to exist in a securities model where each agent undertakes asset transactions to maximize expected utility of wealth. These conditions rule out agents wanting to undertake unbounded balanced transactions to reach a Pareto superior allocation given their expectations. With mild extra assumptions to make agents unwilling to risk incurring unbounded losses on their portfolios, Hart's conditions become equivalent to an assumption of “overlapping expectations,” which is comparable to a much weaker form of Green's “common expectations” (Econometrica41 (1973), 1103–1124).     

Strategy-proof contract auctions and the role of ties

A contract auction establishes a contract between a center and one of the bidders. As contracts may describe many terms, preferences over contracts typically display indifferences. The Qualitative Vickrey Auction (QVA) selects the best contract for the winner that is at least as good for the center as any of the contracts offered by the non-winning players. When each bidder can always offer a contract with higher utility for the center at an arbitrarily small loss of her own utility, the QVA is the only mechanism that is individually rational, strategy-proof, selects stable outcomes, and is Pareto efficient. For general continuous utility functions, a variant of the QVA involving fixed tie-breaking is strategy-proof and also selects stable outcomes. However, there is no mechanism in this setting that in addition also selects Pareto efficient outcomes.     

Temporal risk and the nature of induced preferences

It has been known since the work of H. Markowitz (“Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments,” Yale Univ. Press, 1959) and J. Mossin (Amer. Econ. Rev.59 (1969), 172–174) that even an individual whose underlying preferences satisfy the von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms will not choose over delayed (i.e., “temporal”) risky prospects in a manner which can be modelled as expected utility maximizing. Since most economically important instances of risk taking (insurance, real investment, agriculture, career training) involve delayed as opposed to immediately resolved risk, the standard use of expected utility theory to model such decisions must be questioned. In this paper the technique of “generalized expected utility analysis” (M. J. Machina, Econometrica50 (1982), 277–323) and the theory of support functions (R. T. Rockafellar, “Convex Analysis,” Princeton Univ. Press, 1970) are applied to exactly model and hence determine the nature of preferences over temporal risky prospects.     

On the minimum degree of returns to scale in sunspot models of the business cycle

Bennett and Farmer (J. Econ. Theory 93 (2000) 118) claim that the degree of increasing returns to scale required for indeterminacy in a single sector growth model can be lowered by allowing for preferences that are non-separable in consumption and leisure. In this paper I show that the example they give violates concavity. In a more general setup, which does not impose specific functional forms on utility, I prove that there are no concave utility functions compatible with indeterminacy if the elasticity of scale is lower than the inverse of the labor share in production.