IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v15y1997i3p155-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations

Author

Listed:
  • Israel Finkelshtain
  • Eli Feinerman

Abstract

The well‐known Allais paradox is reformulated as a daily farm decision problem. Only 26% of the farmers exhibit violations of the expected utility hypothesis. Moreover, the tendency for violation decreases with the farm operator's education, experience and family size. No effects of the farm main crop or its scale were detected. Finally, when taking into account the possibility of choice errors, we find that the violation rate is statistically insignificant.

Suggested Citation

  • Israel Finkelshtain & Eli Feinerman, 1997. "Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(3), pages 155-167, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:15:y:1997:i:3:p:155-167
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.1997.tb00429.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1997.tb00429.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1574-0862.1997.tb00429.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Tabea Herrmann & Olaf Hübler & Lukas Menkhoff & Ulrich Schmidt, 2017. "Allais for the poor: Relations to ability, information processing, and risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 129-156, April.
    3. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.

    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:bla:agecon:v:15:y:1997:i:3:p:155-167. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.