IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article

Efficient allocations under ambiguity

  • Strzalecki, Tomasz
  • Werner, Jan

Important implications of the expected utility hypothesis and risk aversion are that if agents have the same probability belief, then consumption plans in every efficient allocation of resources under uncertainty are comonotone with the aggregate endowment, and if their beliefs are concordant, then the consumption plans are measurable with respect to the aggregate endowment. We study these two properties of efficient allocations for models of preferences that exhibit ambiguity aversion using the concept of conditional beliefs, which we introduce in this paper. We provide characterizations of such conditional beliefs for the standard models of preferences used in applications.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053111000548
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Theory.

Volume (Year): 146 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
Pages: 1173-1194

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:3:p:1173-1194
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Luca Rigotti & Chris Shannon=20, 2002. "Uncertainty and Risk in Financial Markets," Game Theory and Information 0201001, EconWPA.
  2. Paul Milgrom & Nancy L.Stokey, 1979. "Information, Trade, and Common Knowledge," Discussion Papers 377R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  3. Shannon, Chris & Strzalecki, Tomasz & Rigotti, Luca, 2008. "Subjective Beliefs and Ex Ante Trade," Scholarly Articles 3637104, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  4. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2011. "Axiomatic Foundations of Multiplier Preferences," Scholarly Articles 14397610, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  5. Alain Chateauneuf & José Heleno Faro, 2009. "Ambiguity through confidence functions," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00634651, HAL.
  6. Antoine Billot & Alain Chateauneuf & Itzhak Gilboa & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2000. "Sharing Beliefs: Between Agreeing and Disagreeing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 685-694, May.
  7. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2001. "Recursive Multiple-Priors," RCER Working Papers 485, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
  8. Chateauneuf, A. & Dana, R.-A, & Tallon, J.-M., 1997. "Optimal Risk-Sharing Rules and Equilibria With Non-Additive Expected Utility," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 97.54, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  9. Timothy Cogley & ThomasJ. Sargent, 2009. "Diverse Beliefs, Survival and the Market Price of Risk," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 354-376, 03.
  10. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
  11. Atsushi Kajii & Takashi Ui, 2004. "Agreeable Bets with Multiple Priors," KIER Working Papers 581, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
  12. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
  13. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1989. "Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-Unique Prior," Post-Print hal-00753237, HAL.
  14. Krueger, Dirk & Perri, Fabrizio, 2011. "Public versus private risk sharing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 920-956, May.
  15. Chateauneuf, Alain & Dana, Rose-Anne & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2000. "Optimal risk-sharing rules and equilibria with Choquet-expected-utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 191-214, October.
  16. Klaus Nehring & Michael Magill & Julian R. Betts, 2003. "Capacities And Probabilistic Beliefs: A Precarious Coexistence," Working Papers 978, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  17. Martins-da-Rocha, V. Filipe, 2010. "Interim efficiency with MEU-preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1987-2017, September.
  18. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2004. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 12, Collegio Carlo Alberto, revised 2006.
  19. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2002. "A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 11-2003, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research, revised Apr 2003.
  20. S. Rao Aiyagari, 1993. "Uninsured idiosyncratic risk and aggregate saving," Working Papers 502, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5461 is not listed on IDEAS
  22. Cass, David & Shell, Karl, 1983. "Do Sunspots Matter?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(2), pages 193-227, April.
  23. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00451997 is not listed on IDEAS
  24. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  25. Yaari, Menahem E., 1969. "Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 315-329, October.
  26. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00174553 is not listed on IDEAS
  27. Thomas J. Sargent & LarsPeter Hansen, 2001. "Robust Control and Model Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 60-66, May.
  28. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
  29. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:3:p:1173-1194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.