IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/actuec/v63y1987i2p58-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Axiomes de rationalité en contexte d’incertitude

Author

Listed:
  • Moffet, Denis

    (Directeur de la chaire en assurance, Sciences de l’administration, Université Laval)

Abstract

The Maximum Expected Utility criterion has become the main paradigm of decision-making under uncertainty. This criterion is based on an axiomatic that is not unanimously accepted. The axioms under attack are Marschak's substitution axiom and Savage's independence axiom. The purpose of this paper is, on one hand, to bring into evidence the non-axiomatic nature of Marschak's and Savage's propositions and, on the other hand, to show that violations of these propositions lead to contradictions. New axioms will be proposed which by means of a deductive process lead to a theorem of substitution from which the Maximum Expected Utility criterion can be derived. Le principe de la maximisation de l’utilité espérée s’est imposé comme le principal paradigme de la décision en contexte d’incertitude. Ce principe repose sur une axiomatique controversée. Les axiomes litigieux sont l’axiome de substitution de Marschak et l’axiome d’indépendance de Savage. Le but de cette communication est de faire ressortir, d’une part, le caractère non axiomatique des prescriptions de Marschak et de Savage et, d’autre part, de montrer par une démarche par l’absurde qu’il peut être coûteux de ne pas agir conformément à ces prescriptions. Finalement, je vais proposer de nouveaux axiomes qui, par un processus déductif, conduiront à un théorème de substitution dont on pourra également déduire le principe de maximisation de l’utilité espérée.

Suggested Citation

  • Moffet, Denis, 1987. "Axiomes de rationalité en contexte d’incertitude," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 63(2), pages 58-73, juin et s.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:actuec:v:63:y:1987:i:2:p:58-73
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/601410ar
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    3. Colson, Gérard, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141, mars.
    4. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    5. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges, 1988. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Individual Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1113-1117.
    7. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 1999. "Risk Weighted Utility Theory as a Solution to the Equity Premium Puzzle," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla99020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    8. Lisa L. Posey & Vickie Bajtelsmit, 2017. "Insurance and Endogenous Bankruptcy Risk: When is it Rational to Choose Gambling, Insurance, and Potential Bankruptcy?," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 15-40, March.
    9. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    10. Loehman, Edna, 1985. "Discussion: Risk Concepts Revisited: A Mathematical Approach," Regional Research Projects > 1985: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 24-27, 1985, Charleston, South Carolina 271792, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    11. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    12. Lefranc, Arnaud & Pistolesi, Nicolas & Trannoy, Alain, 2009. "Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1189-1207, December.
    13. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    14. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    15. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    16. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    17. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    18. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    20. Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Eidman, Vernon R., 1998. "The Effect Of Risk And Autonomy On Independent Hog Producers' Contracting Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-14, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ris:actuec:v:63:y:1987:i:2:p:58-73. 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: Benoit Dostie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/scseeea.html .

    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.