IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/1706.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on Climate Change Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri

    (Dept. of International and European Economic Studies, Athens University of Economics and Business)

  • Nikitas Pittis

    (University of Piraeus, Greece)

  • Panagiotis Samartzis
  • Nikolaos Englezos
  • Andreas Papandreou

Abstract

This paper focuses on different types of ambiguity that affect climate change regulation. In particular, we analyze the effect of the interactions among three types of agents, namely, the decision maker (DM), the experts and the society, on the probabilistic properties of green-house gas (GHG) emissions and the formation of environmental policy, under two types of ambiguity: "deferential ambiguity" and "preferential ambiguity". Deferential ambiguity refers to the uncertainty that DM faces concerning to which expert's forecast (scenario) to defer. Preferential ambiguity stems from the potential inability of DM to correctly discern the society's preferences about the desired change of GHG emissions. This paper shows that the existence of deferential and preferential ambiguities have significant effects on GHG emissions regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis & Nikolaos Englezos & Andreas Papandreou, 2017. "Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on Climate Change Regulation," DEOS Working Papers 1706, Athens University of Economics and Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/Climate.Change.Regulation.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Lempert & David G. Groves & Steven W. Popper & Steve C. Bankes, 2006. "A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 514-528, April.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    3. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 249-284, November.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    5. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    6. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "Rejoinder: The €Œambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessmentâ€," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 357-369, November.
    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. Dimmock, Stephen G. & Kouwenberg, Roy & Mitchell, Olivia S. & Peijnenburg, Kim, 2016. "Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice puzzles: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 559-577.
    2. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis & Nikolaos Englezos & Andreas Papandreou, 2017. "Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on the Probabilistic Properties and Tail Risks of Environmental-Policy Variables," DEOS Working Papers 1703, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    4. Nabil I. Al-Najjar, 2015. "A Bayesian Framework for the Precautionary Principle," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S2), pages 337-365.
    5. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Billot, Antoine & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2018. "Expected utility without parsimony," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 14-21.
    7. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    8. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    9. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2011. "Dynamic consistency for non-expected utility preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 493-518, October.
    10. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "On dynamic consistency in ambiguous games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 241-249.
    12. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    13. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    14. Galanis, S., 2019. "Dynamic Consistency, Valuable Information and Subjective Beliefs," Working Papers 19/02, Department of Economics, City University London.
    15. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    16. Olga Metzger & Thomas Spengler, 2019. "Modeling rational decisions in ambiguous situations: a multi-valued logic approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 271-290, April.
    17. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    18. Spyros Galanis, 2021. "Dynamic consistency, valuable information and subjective beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1497, June.
    19. Hsieh, Chia-Chun & Ma, Zhiming & Novoselov, Kirill E., 2019. "Accounting conservatism, business strategy, and ambiguity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-55.
    20. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision making on climate change; ambiguity; deep uncertainty; deferential ambiguity; preferential ambiguity; tail risks of environmental-policy variables.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D - Microeconomics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aue:wpaper:1706. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.