IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecoprv/ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_159_3_6916.html

Généralisation de l’espérance d’utilité : le cas des jeux de loterie en France

Author

Listed:
  • Serge Blondel

Abstract

[eng] Generalisation of expected utility : the case of lotteries in France.. We take as starting point a stylised fact identified since Friedman and Savage (1948) : the poorer people are the more they gamble. This conclusion is to be found in the case of lotteries in France. It can be explained in the framework of expected utility (EU) theory, but only on the assumption of a utility function that exceptionally calls into question the usual assumption of aversion to risk. We examine the predictions of rank-dependent expected utility theory, the most popular generalisation of EU. This theory is consistent with a propensity to gamble that decreases as a function of wealth while still maintaining an otherwise concave utility function. This result argues in favour of a broadening of the rationality with respect to EU taken on its own. [fre] Nous partons d’un fait stylisé identifié depuis Friedman et Savage : plus les gens sont défavorisés, plus ils jouent. Ce constat se retrouve concernant les jeux de loteries en France. Cette observation peut s’expliquer dans le cadre de la théorie de l’espérance d’utilité (EU), mais seulement en supposant une fonction d’utilité remettant localement en cause l’hypothèse habituelle d’aversion pour le risque. Nous étudions les prédictions de la théorie de l’EU dépendante du rang, la généralisation de l’EU la plus populaire. Cette théorie est cohérente avec une propension au jeu décroissante en fonction de la richesse, tout en conservant une fonction d’utilité globalement concave. Ce résultat milite en faveur d’un élargissement de la rationalité par rapport à la seule EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Serge Blondel, 2003. "Généralisation de l’espérance d’utilité : le cas des jeux de loterie en France," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 159(3), pages 105-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_159_3_6916
    DOI: 10.3406/ecop.2003.6916
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.2003.6916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecop.2003.6916
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_159_3_6916
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecop.2003.6916?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory G. Brunk, 1981. "A Test of the Friedman-Savage Gambling Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 96(2), pages 341-348.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele, 1994. "Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-expected Utility Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 77-91, July.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    6. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    7. Serge Blondel, 2002. "Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-265, May.
    8. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & Juan Pablo Gama & Rodrigo Novinski, 2018. "General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1859-1871, September.
    5. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Mohamed Ali TRABELSI, 2019. "The new models of decision in risk: A critical review of the literature," Turkish Economic Review, EconSciences Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 91-103, June.
    7. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    8. Luc Arrondel & André Masson & Daniel Verger, 2004. "Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l'égard du risque," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 374(1), pages 53-85.
    9. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    10. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    11. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    12. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    13. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    14. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    15. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    16. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    17. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    18. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    19. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the Wealthy Risk More Money? An Experimental Comparison," Discussion Papers 03-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    20. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.

    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:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2003_num_159_3_6916. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecop .

    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.