IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/hal-03252360.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Aloisio Araujo

    (FGV - Fundacao Getulio Vargas [Rio de Janeiro])

  • Alain Chateauneuf

    (IPAG Business School, CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Juan Pablo Gama

    (IMPA - Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada)

  • Rodrigo Novinski

    (Faculdades Ibmec - Faculdades Ibmec)

Abstract

More and more economists are finding both empirical and experimental evidence of economic behavior that is well beyond classical economics. In particular, empirical evidence ( Jullien and Salanié (2000)) and experimental evidence ( Kahneman and Tversky (1979)) supported the importance of risk loving, ambiguity loving, and related behavior in economics. However, these types of preferences have not been analyzed in the general equilibrium literature with a finite number of agents because non-convexity of preferences creates difficulty in proving existence of equilibrium. The main result in this paper provides a set of conditions under which equilibrium exists in such economies. We show that uncertainty of aggregate wealth, as well as some dominance of the endowment of the risk averters in the economy, play a role in the existence of Arrow–Debreu equilibria. This result can be extended to ambiguity in the sense of CEU, Smooth Ambiguity, and Variational Preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & Juan Pablo Gama & Rodrigo Novinski, 2018. "General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-03252360, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:hal-03252360
    DOI: 10.3982/ECTA14777
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03252360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03252360/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/ECTA14777?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. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. 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.
    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. Pierre‐André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié & François Salanié & Amit Gandhi, 2019. "From Aggregate Betting Data to Individual Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 1-36, January.
    6. Shafer, Wayne J., 1976. "Equilibrium in economies without ordered preferences or free disposal," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 135-137, July.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    9. 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..
    10. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    11. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    12. Wei He & Nicholas C. Yannelis, 2016. "Existence of Walrasian equilibria with discontinuous, non-ordered, interdependent and price-dependent preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(3), pages 497-513, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Luca Rigotti & Chris Shannon & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2008. "Subjective Beliefs and ex ante Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1167-1190, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cuong Le Van & Ngoc-Sang Pham, 2021. "Equilibrium with non-convex preferences: some examples," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03177843, HAL.
    2. Geng, Runjie & Kubler, Felix, 2023. "Stochastic overlapping generations with non-convex budget sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Mario Ghossoub & Qinghua Ren & Ruodu Wang, 2024. "Counter-monotonic risk allocations and distortion risk measures," Papers 2407.16099, arXiv.org.
    4. Herings, P.J.J. & Zhan, Yang, 2022. "Competitive Equilibria in Incomplete Markets with Risk Loving Preferences," Discussion Paper 2022-026, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Araujo, A. & Gama, J. & Suarez, C.E., 2022. "Lack of prevalence of the endowment effect: An equilibrium analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    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. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    2. 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.
    3. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    4. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    5. Fan Wang, 2022. "Rank-Dependent Utility Under Multiple Priors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8166-8183, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    8. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    12. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2023. "Three Layers of Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 2209-2236.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Mario Ghossoub & Michael B. Zhu & Wing Fung Chong, 2024. "Pareto-Optimal Peer-to-Peer Risk Sharing with Robust Distortion Risk Measures," Papers 2409.05103, arXiv.org.
    19. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Cardinal extensions of EU model based on the Choquet integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00348822, HAL.
    20. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.

    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:hal:cesptp:hal-03252360. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.