IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v30y2016i2p219-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retrospectives: How Economists Came to Accept Expected Utility Theory: The Case of Samuelson and Savage

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan Moscati

Abstract

Expected utility theory dominated the economic analysis of individual decision-making under risk from the early 1950s to the 1990. Among the early supporters of the expected utility hypothesis in the von Neumann–Morgenstern version were Milton Friedman and Leonard Jimmie Savage, both based at the University of Chicago, and Jacob Marschak, a leading member of the Cowles Commission for Research in Economics. Paul Samuelson of MIT was initially a severe critic of expected utility theory. Between mid-April and early May 1950, Samuelson composed three papers in which he attacked von Neumann and Morgenstern's axiomatic system. By 1952, however, Samuelson had somewhat unexpectedly become a resolute supporter of the expected utility hypothesis. Why did Samuelson change his mind? Based on the correspondence between Samuelson, Savage, Marschak, and Friedman, this article reconstructs the joint intellectual journey that led Samuelson to accept expected utility theory and Savage to revise his motivations for supporting it.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:30:y:2016:i:2:p:219-36
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.30.2.219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.2.219
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/jep/ds/3002/30020219_ds.zip
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul A. Samuelson, 1942. "Fiscal Policy and Income Determination," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 56(4), pages 575-605.
    2. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016057.
    3. Paul A. Samuelson, 1966. "A Summing Up," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(4), pages 568-583.
    4. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    5. Sophie Jallais & Pierre-Charles Pradier, 2005. "The Allais Paradox and its Immediate Consequences for Expected Utility Theory," Post-Print halshs-00311396, HAL.
    6. Philippe Mongin, 2014. "Le paradoxe d'Allais. Comment lui rendre sa signification perdue ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 65(5), pages 743-779.
    7. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107674165.
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    9. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016064.
    10. Bertrand R. Munier, 1991. "Nobel Laureate: The Many Other Allais Paradoxes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 179-199, Spring.
    11. Samuelson, Paul A., 1950. "Probability And The Attempts To Measure Utility (English & Japanese)," Economic Review, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 1(3), pages 167-173, July.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107627314.
    14. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016040.
    15. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    16. Acemoglu,Daron & Arellano,Manuel & Dekel,Eddie (ed.), 2013. "Advances in Economics and Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107638105.
    17. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1952. "The Expected-Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(6), pages 463-463.
    18. Gerhard Tintner, 1942. "A Contribution to the Non-Static Theory of Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 56(2), pages 274-306.
    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. Monet, Benjamin & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2022. "Subjective probability and stochastic independence," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Daria Pignalosa, 2021. "The Euler Equation Approach: Critical Implications of Recent Developments in the Theory of Intertemporal Choice," Bulletin of Political Economy, Bulletin of Political Economy, vol. 15(1), pages 1-43, June.
    4. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Losses loom larger than gains and reference dependent preferences in Bernoulli’s utility function," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 220-237.
    5. Craig Landry & Dylan Turner, 2020. "Risk Perceptions and Flood Insurance: Insights from Homeowners on the Georgia Coast," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    7. Clémence Thebaut, 2023. "The Marginal Revolution in the light of Foucault's typology of epistemes," Working Papers hal-04139952, HAL.
    8. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    9. Malte Doehne & Catherine Herfeld, 2023. "How academic opinion leaders shape scientific ideas: an acknowledgment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2507-2533, April.
    10. Jean-Sébastien Lenfant, 2018. "Probabilising the consumer: Georgescu-Roegen, Marschak and Quandt on the modelling of the consumer in the 1950s," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 36-72, January.
    11. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    12. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    13. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    14. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    15. Peter N. Ireland, 2021. "Edward Nelson: Milton Friedman and economic debate in the United States, 1932–1972 (volumes 1 and 2)," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 101-105, April.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Naudé, Wim, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and the Economics of Decision-Making," IZA Discussion Papers 16000, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Schilirò, Daniele, 2017. "Economics versus psychology.Risk, uncertainty and the expected utility theory," MPRA Paper 83366, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Aldona Kluczek & Patrycja Żegleń & Daniela Matušíková, 2021. "The Use of Prospect Theory for Energy Sustainable Industry 4.0," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-29, November.
    21. Tanko, Mohammed, 2022. "Nexus of risk preference, culture and religion in the adoption of improved rice varieties: Evidence from Northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    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. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    2. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    3. Jian Yang, 2015. "Game-theoretic Modeling of Players' Ambiguities on External Factors," Papers 1510.06812, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2017.
    4. 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.
    5. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    6. Borgonovo, E. & Cappelli, V. & Maccheroni, F. & Marinacci, M., 2018. "Risk analysis and decision theory: A bridge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 280-293.
    7. Massimo Marinacci, 2015. "Model Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(6), pages 1022-1100, December.
    8. Dominiak, Adam & Eichberger, Jürgen, 2021. "Games in context: Equilibrium under ambiguity for belief functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 125-159.
    9. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    10. L. A. Franzoni, 2016. "Optimal liability design under risk and ambiguity," Working Papers wp1048, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2019. "The value of a statistical life under changes in ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    14. Ilke Aydogan & Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three layers of uncertainty: an experiment," Working Papers 623, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    15. Xiangyu Qu, 2017. "Separate aggregation of beliefs and values under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 503-519, February.
    16. Aloisio Araujo & Jean-Marc Bonnisseau & Alain Chateauneuf & Rodrigo Novinski, 2017. "Optimal sharing with an infinite number of commodities in the presence of optimistic and pessimistic agents," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(1), pages 131-157, January.
    17. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Mixed extensions of decision problems under uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(4), pages 827-866, April.
    18. Loïc Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics: A Review and Proposed Framework for Future Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 475-501, November.
    19. Eisei Ohtaki & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2015. "Monetary equilibria and Knightian uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(3), pages 435-459, August.
    20. Eisei Ohtaki, 2016. "Optimality of the Friedman rule under ambiguity," Working Papers e103, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • B21 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Microeconomics
    • B31 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought: Individuals - - - Individuals
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:aea:jecper:v:30:y:2016:i:2:p:219-36. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.