IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/aunaec/216.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Maxmin Expected Utility and Weight of Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Kelsey, D.

Abstract

In 1989, I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler proposed an extension of subjective expected utility theory called maxmin expected utility. The author presents a new exposition of this theory and suggests an extension of maxmin expected utility that which does not allow strictly dominated alternatives to be chosen. Maxmin expected utility is related to the earlier notion of weight of evidence and an application to welfare economics is discussed. The author examines normative properties of maxmin expected utility and argues that the theory is not vulnerable to the Dutch book argument. Copyright 1994 by Royal Economic Society.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kelsey, D., 1990. "Maxmin Expected Utility and Weight of Evidence," Papers 216, Australian National University - Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:aunaec:216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    2. Carlo Zappia, 2012. "Re-reading Keynes after the crisis: probability and decision," Department of Economics University of Siena 646, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    3. Feduzi, Alberto, 2007. "On the relationship between Keynes's conception of evidential weight and the Ellsberg paradox," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 545-565, October.
    4. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey & Burkhard C. Schipper, 2009. "Ambiguity and social interaction," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 61(2), pages 355-379, April.
    5. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    6. Alberto Feduzi, 2010. "On Keynes's conception of the Weight of Evidence," Post-Print hal-00870185, HAL.
    7. Stefan Trautmann, 2010. "Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 405-415, April.
    8. Feduzi, Alberto, 2010. "On Keynes's conception of the weight of evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 338-351, November.
    9. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2007. "The weight of argument and non-additive measures: a note," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 003, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    10. Basili, Marcello & Zappia, Carlo, 2009. "Keynes's "non-numerical" probabilities and non-additive measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 419-430, June.
    11. Robert Shelburne, 2006. "A Utilitarian Welfare Analysis of Trade Liberalization," ECE Discussion Papers Series 2006_4, UNECE.
    12. Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 2000. "Non-Additive Beliefs and Strategic Equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 183-215, February.
    13. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2010. "Ambiguity and uncertainty in Ellsberg and Shackle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(3), pages 449-474.
    14. Huan Xu & Shie Mannor, 2012. "Distributionally Robust Markov Decision Processes," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 288-300, May.

    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:fth:aunaec:216. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dranuau.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.