IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v41y2014i1p135-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data

Author

Listed:
  • Géraldine Bocquého
  • Florence Jacquet
  • Arnaud Reynaud

Abstract

We elicit the risk preferences of a sample of French farmers in a field-experiment setting, considering both expected utility and cumulative prospect theory. Under the EU framework, our results show that farmers are characterised by a concave utility function for gain outcomes implying risk aversion. The CPT framework confirms this result, but also suggests that farmers are twice as sensitive to losses as to gains and tend to pay undue attention to unlikely extreme outcomes. Accounting for loss aversion and probability weighting can make a difference in the design of effective and efficient policies, contracts or insurance schemes. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:135-172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbt006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    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:erevae:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:135-172. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.