IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v81y2016i3d10.1007_s11238-016-9542-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nash was a first to axiomatize expected utility

Author

Listed:
  • Han Bleichrodt

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Chen Li

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Ivan Moscati

    (Insubria University)

  • Peter P. Wakker

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Nash is famous for many inventions, but it is less known that he, simultaneously with Marschak, also was the first to axiomatize expected utility for risk. In particular, these authors were the first to state the independence condition, a condition that should have been but was not stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern. Marschak’s paper resulted from interactions with several people at the Cowles Commission. We document unique letters and personal communications with Nash, Samuelson, Arrow, Dalkey, and others, making plausible that Nash made his discovery independently from the others.

Suggested Citation

  • Han Bleichrodt & Chen Li & Ivan Moscati & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Nash was a first to axiomatize expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 309-312, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:81:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9542-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-016-9542-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-016-9542-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-016-9542-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Moscati, 2016. "Retrospectives: How Economists Came to Accept Expected Utility Theory: The Case of Samuelson and Savage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 219-236, Spring.
    2. Peter Fishburn & Peter Wakker, 1995. "The Invention of the Independence Condition for Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(7), pages 1130-1144, July.
    3. Ho-Chyuan Chen & William Neilson, 1999. "Pure-strategy Equilibria with Non-expected Utility Players," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 201-212, April.
    4. Samuelson, Paul A., 1950. "Probability And The Attempts To Measure Utility (English & Japanese)," Economic Review, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 1(3), pages 174-180, July.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aniruddha Ghosh & Mohammed Ali Khan & Metin Uyanik, 2022. "The Intermediate Value Theorem and Decision-Making in Psychology and Economics: An Expositional Consolidation," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, July.
    2. M. Ali Khan & Metin Uyanık, 2021. "Topological connectedness and behavioral assumptions on preferences: a two-way relationship," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 411-460, March.
    3. Mark Schneider, 2019. "A Bias Aggregation Theorem," Working Papers 19-03, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marc Le Menestrel & Luk Van Wassenhove, 2001. "The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 329-349, December.
    2. Zappia, Carlo, 2021. "Leonard Savage, The Ellsberg Paradox, And The Debate On Subjective Probabilities: Evidence From The Archives," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 169-192, June.
    3. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    4. Monet, Benjamin & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2022. "Subjective probability and stochastic independence," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    6. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2009. "Splitting up value: A critical review of residual income theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Michael Carter & Julian Wright, 1999. "Interconnection in Network Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    9. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    10. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    11. Yan, Ruiliang & Wang, John & Zhou, Bin, 2010. "Channel integration and profit sharing in the dynamics of multi-channel firms," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 430-440.
    12. Marc Fleurbaey, 2000. "Choix social : une difficulté et de multiples possibilités," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 51(5), pages 1215-1232.
    13. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    14. Ichiishi, Tatsuro, 1985. "Management versus ownership, II," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 115-138, March.
    15. Pinkley, Robin L. & Conlon, Donald E. & Sawyer, John E. & Sleesman, Dustin J. & Vandewalle, Don & Kuenzi, Maribeth, 2019. "The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: How what could be haunts what is," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 34-48.
    16. Wen Li Cheng & Jeffrey Sachs & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "An Inframarginal Analysis Of The Ricardian Model," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 6, pages 87-107, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    18. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    19. repec:tcd:wpaper:tep7 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Volodymyr Babich & Simone Marinesi & Gerry Tsoukalas, 2021. "Does Crowdfunding Benefit Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital Investors?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 508-524, March.
    21. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:81:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9542-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.