IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v38y2014i1p1-21..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

De Finetti on uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Feduzi
  • Jochen Runde
  • Carlo Zappia

Abstract

The well-known Knightian distinction between quantifiable risk and unquantifiable uncertainty is at odds with the dominant subjectivist conception of probability associated with de Finetti, Ramsey and Savage. Risk and uncertainty are rendered indistinguishable on the subjectivist approach insofar as an individual’s subjective estimate of the probability of any event can be elicited from the odds at which she would be prepared to bet for or against that event. The risk/uncertainty distinction has however never quite gone away and is currently under renewed theoretical scrutiny. The purpose of this article is to show that de Finetti’s understanding of the distinction is more nuanced than is usually admitted. Relying on usually overlooked excerpts of de Finetti’s works commenting on Keynes, Knight and interval valued probabilities, we argue that de Finetti suggested a relevant theoretical case for uncertainty to hold even when individuals are endowed with subjective probabilities. Indeed, de Finetti admitted that the distinction between risk and uncertainty is relevant when different individuals sensibly disagree about the probability of the occurrence of an event. We conclude that the received interpretation of de Finetti’s understanding of subjective probability needs to be qualified on this front.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Feduzi & Jochen Runde & Carlo Zappia, 2014. "De Finetti on uncertainty," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 38(1), pages 1-21.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:1-21.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bet054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Carlo Zappia, 2021. "Keynes's Treatise on Probability at 100 Years: Its Most Enduring Message," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-36, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Carlo Zappia, 2015. "Daniel Ellsberg on the Ellsberg Paradox," Department of Economics University of Siena 716, Department of Economics, University of Siena.

    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:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:1:p:1-21.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.