This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Treatment under Ambiguity

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Charles F.Manski

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Economics have long associated decision making wit optimization. The decision maker chooses an action from a known choice set C. he chosen action maximizes a known real-valued objective function F (.): C --> R. Optimization assumes enough knowledge of C and f(.) to determine an optimal action. Suppose the decision maker knows C but not f(.). He knows only that f(.) epsilon F, where F is a specified set of functions mapping C into R. then the decision maker may not have enough information to determine an optimal action. This is a problem of decision under ambiugity.

After introducing basic themes about decision under ambiguity, I examine the problem of treatment choice. A social planner must choose a treatment rule assigninga treatment to each member of a population. Each person has some observed covariates and a response function mapping treatments into real-valued outcomes. The planner wants to choose treatments that maximize the population mean value of the outcome.

It has been conventional to assume that the planner knows (or at least can estimate) the population distribution of response functions conditional on covariates. With this knowledge, the planner faces a problem of decision under uncertainty and can choose an optimal treatment rule. There are, however, fundamental and practical limits to the knowledge of response functions that planners commonly possess. Thus planners choosing treatment rules ordinarily face problems of decision under ambiguity. This paper gives the key theoretical findings and considers the implications for treatment choice.

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Santa Fe Institute in its series Working Papers with number 96-10-078.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Oct 1996
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wop:safiwp:96-10-078

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Web page: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/working-papers.html
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Thomas Krichel).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Woodward, Richard T., 1998. "Should Agricultural And Resource Economists Care That The Subjective Expected Utility Hypothesis Is False?," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20941, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Springer Verlag was the first commercial publisher to be listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-16.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.