Expected Utility theory and the tyranny of catastrophic risks
AbstractExpected Utility theory is not only applied to individual choices but also to ethical decisions, e.g. in cost-benefit analysis of climate change policy measures that affect future generations. In this context the crucial question arises whether EU theory is able to deal with 'catastrophic risks', i.e. risks of high, but very unlikely losses, in an ethically appealing way. In this paper we show that this is not the case. Rather, if in the framework of EU theory a plausible level of risk aversion is assumed, a 'tyranny of catastrophic risk' (TCR) emerges, i.e. project evaluation may be dominated by the catastrophic event even if its probability is negligibly small. With low degrees of risk aversion, however the catastrophic risk eventually has no impact at all when its probability goes to zero which is ethically not acceptable as well. --
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research in its series ZEW Discussion Papers with number 10-059.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
utilitarianism; Expected Utility theory; catastrophic risks;
Other versions of this item:
- Buchholz, Wolfgang & Schymura, Michael, 2012. "Expected utility theory and the tyranny of catastrophic risks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 234-239.
- Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-10-02 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2010-10-02 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2010-10-02 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Michielsen, T.O., 2013. "Environmental Catastrophes Under Time-inconsistent Preferences," Discussion Paper 2013-013, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013.
"Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events,"
Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.
- Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2011. "Valuing life: experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Working Papers halshs-00651163, HAL.
- Frank Ackerman & Elizabeth Stanton & Ramón Bueno, 2013. "Epstein–Zin Utility in DICE: Is Risk Aversion Irrelevant to Climate Policy?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 73-84, September.
- Thomas Michielsen, 2013. "Environmental Catastrophes under Time-Inconsistent Preferences," Working Papers 2013.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- Edilio Valentini & Paolo Vitale, 2014. "Optimal Climate Policy for a Pessimistic Social Planner," Working Papers 2014.33, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.