IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

De la théorie à une enquête méthodologique originale

  • Luc Arrondel
  • André Masson
  • Daniel Verger

[eng] From Theory to an Original Methodological Survey Standard saving theory -which assumes the "exponential” discounting of future utilities through to the end of the life cycle and refers, under an uncertain future, to the criterion of expected utility -uses only two preference parameters to explain asset behaviour: relative risk aversion and the discount rate. The clear mismatch between this theory’s predictions and actual observation has given rise to the development of more realistic non-standard models -unexpected utility, hyperbolic discounting, etc. However, these models have to use more independent preference parameters to be able to agree with the laboratory and survey data: empirically, this proliferation runs into a dead end. We have therefore adopted a middle line using two "pivotal” preference parameters - one for risk and the other for time - whose definitions differ from the standard framework. The risk parameter characterises the general attitude to risk rather than actual aversion. Likewise, the long-run time preference is flanked by two other types of parameters measuring short-run impatience and altruism with regard to descendants. Correlatively, the empirical approach adopted proves to be both qualitative and eclectic. Aware of the disappointments of experiences to date in the Englishspeaking world, we propose purely ordinal preference measures, called "scores”, which summarise the interviewee’s responses to a multitude of all kinds of generally concrete questions - behaviour, opinions, intentions, etc. - covering a wide range of areas - consumption, health, work, financial management, family, retirement, etc. [fre] De la théorie à une enquête méthodologique originale La théorie standard de l’épargnant - qui suppose une actualisation «exponentielle» des utilités futures jusqu’au terme de l’existence et qui se réfère, en avenir risqué, au critère de l’espérance de l’utilité - ne retient que deux paramètres de préférence pour expliquer les comportements patrimoniaux: l’aversion - relative - à l’égard du risque et le taux de dépréciation du futur. L’inadéquation manifeste des prédictions de cette théorie avec l’observation a conduit à l’élaboration de modèles non standard plus réalistes - utilité non espérée, actualisation «hyperbolique», etc. Cependant, ces modèles doivent multiplier les paramètres de préférence indépendants pour pouvoir s’accorder aux données de laboratoire ou d’enquêtes: cette prolifération aboutit, au plan empirique, à une impasse. C’est pourquoi on adopte une voie moyenne qui privilégie encore deux paramètres de préférence «pivots», l’un par rapport au risque, l’autre par rapport au temps, mais dont les définitions s’éloignent du cadre standard. Le paramètre pour le risque caractérisera l’attitude générale à l’égard du risque plutôt que l’aversion proprement dite; de même, la préférence de long terme pour le présent se verra bordée de deux autres types de paramètres, mesurant l’un l’impatience sur le court terme, l’autre l’altruisme pour sa descendance. Corrélativement, l’approche empirique adoptée s’avère à la fois qualitative et éclectique. Avertis des déboires qu’ont connus les expériences anglo-saxonnes existantes, on propose des mesures purement ordinales des préférences, baptisées «scores», qui synthétisent les réponses de l’enquêté à une multitude de questions le plus souvent concrètes et de toute nature - comportements, opinions, projets, etc. - et couvrant un large éventail de domaines - consommation, santé, travail, gestion financière, famille, retraite, etc. [ger] Von der Theorie zu einer originellen methodologischen Erhebung Die Standardtheorie über den Sparer, die eine «exponentielle» Abzinsung des künftigen Nutzens bis zum Existenzende annimmt und die bei einer ungewissen Zukunft auf das Kriterium der Erwartung von Nutzen verweist, verwendet nur zwei Präferenzparameter, um die Verhaltensweisen bei der Vermögensbildung zu erklären: relative Risikoaversion und Grad des Wertverlusts der Zukunft. Da sich die Prognosen dieser Theorie mit den gemachten Beobachtungen offensichtlich nicht decken, wurden Nichtstandard-Modelle erarbeitet, die realistischer sind: nicht erhoffter Nutzen, «hyperbolische» Abzinsung usw. Allerdings sind bei diesen Modellen mehr unabhängige Präferenzparameter erforderlich, um sich den Labor-oder Erhebungsdaten anpassen zu können: die Zunahme der Parameter führt aber empirisch gesehen in eine Sackgasse. Aus diesem Grunde wird ein mittlerer Weg gewählt, der ebenfalls zwei zentrale Präferenzparameter privilegiert; der eine für das Risiko und der andere für die Zeit, deren Parameter für das Risiko kennzeichnet eher die allgemeine Einstellung zum Risiko als die Aversion im eigentlichen Sinne. Des Gleichen wird die langfristige Präferenz für die Gegenwert von zwei anderen Arten von Parametern bestimmt, von denen der eine die Ungeduld in kurzfristiger Hinsicht und der andere den Altruismus zugunsten der Nachkommen misst. Es zeigt sich, dass der gewählte empirische Ansatz qualitativer und eklektischer Art ist. Im Bewusstsein der Misserfolge, zu denen die bestehenden angelsächsischen Erfahrungen führten, werden rein ordinale Messungen der Präferenzen vorgeschlagen, die als «Scores» bezeichnet werden; diese fassen die Antworten des Befragten auf eine Vielzahl von in den meisten Fällen konkreten und unterschiedlichen Fragen -Verhaltensweisen, Meinungen, Projekte usw - zusammen und decken ein breites Spektrum von Bereichen - Konsum, Gesundheit, Arbeit, Finanzmanagement, Familie, Ruhestand usw. -ab. [spa] De la teoría a una encuesta metodológica original La teoría estándar del ahorrador - la cual supone una actualización «exponencial» de las utilidades futuras hasta el fin de vida y se refiere, en un futuro arriesgado, al criterio de la esperanza de la utilidad - tan sólo retiene dos parámetros de preferencia para explicar los comportamientos patrimoniales: la aversión - relativa - respecto al riesgo y la tasa de depreciación del futuro. La patente inadecuación de las predicciones de esta teoría con lo observado induce la elaboración de unos modelos no estandares más realistas - utilidad no esperada, actualización «hiperbólica», etc. Sin embargo, esos modelos deben multiplicar los parámetros de preferencia independientes para poder concordar con datos de laboratorio o encuestas: esa proliferación da, a nivel empírico, a un callejón sin salida. Por todo eso se adopta aquí una vía media que sigue privilegiando dos parámetros de preferencia «ejes», uno relacionado con el riesgo, otro relacionado con el tiempo, pero sus definiciones se alejan del marco estándar. El parámetro relacionado con el riesgo va a caracterizar la actitud general respecto al riesgo antes que la aversión propiamente dicha; del mismo modo, la preferencia de largo plazo por el presente irá a la par con otros dos tipos de parámetros, uno que mide la impaciencia a corto plazo, otro el altruismo con la descendencia. Correlativamente el enfoque empírico adoptado resulta ser a la vez cualitativo y ecléctico. Sabidas las decepciones que se llevaron las experiencias anglosajonas existentes, se proponen aquí unas mediciones meramente ordinales de las preferencias, llamadas «tanteos», las cuales sintetizan las respuestas del encuestado a una multitud de preguntas la mayoría de las veces concretas y de todo tipo - comportamientos, opiniones, proyectos, etc. - y que abarcan un amplio abanico de ámbitos - consumo, sanidad, trabajo, gestión financiera, familia, jubilación, etc.

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://dx.doi.org/doi:10.3406/estat.2004.7246
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7246
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Programme National Persée in its journal Economie et statistique.

Volume (Year): 374 (2004)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 21-51

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7246
Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2004.7246
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.persee.fr/collection/estat

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. Andrew B. Abel, 1990. "Asset Prices under Habit Formation and Catching up with the Joneses," NBER Working Papers 3279, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
  3. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
  4. Gary S. Becker & Casey B. Mulligan, 1997. "The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 729-758.
  5. Tobin, James, 1985. "Neoclassical Theory in America: J. B. Clark and Fisher," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(6), pages 28-38, December.
  6. Kimball, Miles S, 1990. "Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 53-73, January.
  7. Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2001. "The social discount rate," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 137, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  8. Jean-Pascal Gayant, 2004. "Rôle de la transformation des probabilités dans la combinaison d'actifs risqués," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 73, pages 141-155.
  9. Attanasio, Orazio P & Browning, Martin, 1995. "Consumption over the Life Cycle and over the Business Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1118-37, December.
  10. Miles S. Kimball, 1991. "Standard Risk Aversion," NBER Technical Working Papers 0099, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  12. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1979. "Dynamic Choice Theory and Dynamic Programming," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 91-100, January.
  13. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-68, December.
  14. Akerlof, George A, 1991. "Procrastination and Obedience," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 1-19, May.
  15. Viscusi, W. Kip & Moore, Michael J., 1989. "Rates of time preference and valuations of the duration of life," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 297-317, April.
  16. Luc Arrondel & André Masson, 1996. "Gestion du risque et comportements patrimoniaux," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 296(1), pages 63-89.
  17. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1986. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 41, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
  18. John Ameriks & Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2003. "Wealth Accumulation and the Propensity to Plan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(3), pages 1007-1047.
  19. Milton Friedman, 1957. "Introduction to "A Theory of the Consumption Function"," NBER Chapters, in: A Theory of the Consumption Function, pages 1-6 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  20. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  21. Milton Friedman, 1957. "A Theory of the Consumption Function," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie57-1, September.
  22. Paul A. Samuelson, 1937. "A Note on Measurement of Utility," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 155-161.
  23. Friend, Irwin & Blume, Marshall E, 1975. "The Demand for Risky Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 900-922, December.
  24. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
  25. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
  26. Laibson, David I., 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," Scholarly Articles 4481499, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  27. repec:adr:anecst:y:2004:i:73 is not listed on IDEAS
  28. Gilbert Ghez & Gary S. Becker, 1975. "A Theory of the Allocation of Time and Goods Over the Life Cycle," NBER Chapters, in: The Allocation of Time and Goods over the Life Cycle, pages 1-45 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  29. repec:adr:anecst:y:2004:i:73:p:07 is not listed on IDEAS
  30. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
  31. Gilbert Ghez & Gary S. Becker, 1975. "The Allocation of Time and Goods over the Life Cycle," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number ghez75-1, September.
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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7246. 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: (Equipe PERSEE)

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.