An additively separable representation in the Savage framework
This paper elicits an additively separable representation of preferences in the Savage framework (where the objects of choice are acts: measurable functions from an infinite set of states to a potentially finite set of consequences). A preference relation over acts is represented by the integral over the subset of the product of the state space and the consequence space which corresponds to the act, where this integral is calculated with respect to a “state-dependent utility” measure on this space. The result applies at the stage prior to the separation of probabilities and utilities, and requires neither Savage’s P3 (monotonicity) nor his P4 (likelihood ordering). It may thus prove useful for the development of state-dependent utility representation theorems in the Savage framework.
|Date of creation:||29 Oct 2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: HEC Paris, 78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex, France|
Web page: http://www.hec.fr/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Brian Hill, 2007.
"When is there state independence?,"
- Karni, E. & Schmeidler, D., 1991.
"On the Uniqueness of Subjective Probabilities,"
1-92, Tel Aviv - the Sackler Institute of Economic Studies.
- Edi Karni & Philippe Mongin, 2000.
"On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices,"
INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 233-248, February.
- Karni, E. & Mongin, P., 1997. "On the Determination of Subjective Probability by Choices," Papers 9737, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
- E. Karni & Ph. Mongin, 1997. "On the determination of subjective probability by choices," THEMA Working Papers 97-37, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- Castagnoli, Erio & LiCalzi, Marco, 2006.
"Benchmarking real-valued acts,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 236-253, November.
- R. H. Strotz, 1955. "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 165-180.
- Karni, Edi, 1996. "Probabilities and Beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 249-262, November.
- Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987.
"Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
- Itzhak Gilboa, 1987. "Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities," Post-Print hal-00756291, HAL.
- Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Wakker, 2005. "The Likelihood Method for Decision under Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 3-76, 02.
- Karni Edi, 1993. "Subjective Expected Utility Theory with State-Dependent Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 428-438, August.
- Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David & Vind, Karl, 1983. "On State Dependent Preferences and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1021-1031, July.