IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ersfer/354208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Apport du modèle d'utilité anticipée à l'analyse de l'attitude des exploitants agricoles face au risque

Author

Listed:
  • Madjit Bouzit, Abdel

Abstract

The expected utility theory is the most used theory to modelling risky production in agriculture. However, Allais and others suggested that people violate expected-maximisation in systematic ways. Such violations have led to develop anticipated utility theory that generalises the expected utility theory. This generalisation postulates that, in uncertains choices, individuals substitute elementary probabilities by weighting probabilities. This probabilities weighting is represented by a transformed function which takes a part in the risk aversion attitude. This paper investigates the use of new developments of the expected utility theory known as anticipated utility theory. An approach to estimate farmers' risk attitude is here presented. Questionnaires are designed to elicit both the utility function and the probability weighting function.

Suggested Citation

  • Madjit Bouzit, Abdel, 1995. "Apport du modèle d'utilité anticipée à l'analyse de l'attitude des exploitants agricoles face au risque," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 227.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ersfer:354208
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.354208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/354208/files/ecoru_0013-0559_1995_num_227_1_4731.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.354208?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. Montesano, Aldo, 1991. "Measures of Risk Aversion with Expected and Nonexpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 271-283, July.
    3. Hilton, Ronald W., 1988. "Risk attitude under two alternative theories of choice under risk," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 119-136, March.
    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. Cerf, Marianne & Sébillotte, Michel, 1997. "Approche cognitive des décisions de production dans l'exploitation agricole," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 239.

    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. 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.
    2. Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2002. "Intuitive optimizing for time allocation decisions in newly formed ventures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,24, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    3. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    5. Alexander Harin, 2024. "About a “Certain-uncertain†Inconsistency within the Generally Accepted Experimental Procedures of Behavioral Economics," International Journal of Economics and Financial Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 10(2), pages 17-30, 06-2024.
    6. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Maier, Johannes & Rüger, Maximilian, 2010. "Measuring Risk Aversion Model-Independently," Discussion Papers in Economics 11873, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    8. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    11. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159, February.
    12. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    13. Essid, Samir, 1997. "Choice under risk with certainty and potential effects: A general axiomatic model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 223-247, October.
    14. Fausto Corradin & Domenico Sartore, 2020. "Risk Aversion: Differential Conditions for the Iso-Utility Curves with Positive Slope in Transformed Two-Parameter Distributions," Advances in Decision Sciences, Asia University, Taiwan, vol. 24(3), pages 142-217, September.
    15. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    16. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    17. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    18. Pavlo Blavatskyy, "undated". "Efficient elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions," IEW - Working Papers 211, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Schneider, Sebastian O. & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Higher Order Risk Preferences: Experimental Measures, Determinants and Related Field Behavior," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224643, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. José Luis Pinto, 1995. "Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Some caveats," Economics Working Papers 140, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    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:ags:ersfer:354208. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sferrea.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.