IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02878106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguity, Optimism, and Pessimism in Adverse Selection Models

Author

Listed:
  • Raphaël Giraud

    (LED - Laboratoire d'Economie Dionysien - UP8 - Université Paris 8 Vincennes-Saint-Denis)

  • Lionel Thomas

    (CRESE - Centre de REcherches sur les Stratégies Economiques (UR 3190) - UFC - Université de Franche-Comté - UBFC - Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté [COMUE])

Abstract

We investigate the effect of ambiguity and ambiguity attitude on the shape and properties of the optimal contract in an adverse selection model with a continuum of types, using the parametric model of ambiguity and ambiguity aversion called the NEO-additive model (Chateauneuf, Eichberger, and Grant, 2007). We show that it necessarily features efficiency and a jump at the top and pooling at the bottom of the distribution. Conditional on the degree of ambiguity, the pooling section may or may not be supplemented by a separating section. As a result, ambiguity adversely affects the principal's ability to solve the adverse selection problem and therefore the least efficient types benefit from ambiguity with respect to risk. Conversely, ambiguity is detrimental to the most efficient types. This is confirmed in the comparative statics section.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Raphaël Giraud & Lionel Thomas, 2017. "Ambiguity, Optimism, and Pessimism in Adverse Selection Models," Post-Print hal-02878106, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02878106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jet.2017.06.004
    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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. Gérard Mondello, 2012. "Ambiguity, Agency Relationships and Adverse Selection," Post-Print halshs-00929978, HAL.
    4. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2012. "Generalized neo-additive capacities and updating," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 8(3), pages 237-257, September.
    5. Lewis Tracy R. & Sappington David E. M., 1993. "Ignorance in Agency Problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 169-183, October.
    6. Bodoh-Creed, Aaron L., 2012. "Ambiguous beliefs and mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 518-537.
    7. Myerson, Roger B, 1979. "Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 61-73, January.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Marie-Louise Vierø, 2012. "Contracting in Vague Environments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 104-130, May.
    10. Alfredo Di Tillio & Nenad Kos & Matthias Messner, 2012. "The Design of Ambiguous Mechanisms," Working Papers 446, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    11. Philipp Weinschenk, 2010. "Moral Hazard and Ambiguity," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_39, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    13. Martin F. Hellwig, 2010. "Incentive Problems With Unidimensional Hidden Characteristics: A Unified Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1201-1237, July.
    14. Dirk Bergemann & Karl Schlag, 2012. "Robust Monopoly Pricing," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 13, pages 417-441, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2010. "Comparing three ways to update Choquet beliefs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 91-94, May.
    16. Subir Bose & Ludovic Renou, 2014. "Mechanism Design With Ambiguous Communication Devices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1853-1872, September.
    17. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2016. "Mechanism design with maxmin agents: theory and an application to bilateral trade," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    18. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    19. Dow, James & Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro da Costa, 1992. "Uncertainty Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Optimal Choice of Portfolio," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(1), pages 197-204, January.
    20. repec:oup:restud:v:84:y::i:1:p:237-276. is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Raphael Amit, 1986. "Petroleum Reservoir Exploitation: Switching from Primary to Secondary Recovery," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 534-549, August.
    22. Rigotti, L., 1998. "Imprecise Beliefs in a Principal Agent Model," Other publications TiSEM 5da27fed-fba0-49a9-b3de-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    23. Karni, Edi, 2009. "A reformulation of the maxmin expected utility model with application to agency theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1-2), pages 97-112, January.
    24. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Rigotti, Luca & Shannon, Chris, 2011. "Knightian uncertainty and moral hazard," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1148-1172, May.
    25. Tomiyama, Ken, 1985. "Two-stage optimal control problems and optimality conditions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 317-337, November.
    26. David Sappington, 1996. "Designing Incentive Regulation for the Telecommunications Industry," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52863, September.
    27. Mukerji, Sujoy, 1998. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Contractual Form," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1207-1231, December.
    28. Makris, Miltiadis, 2001. "Necessary conditions for infinite-horizon discounted two-stage optimal control problems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 1935-1950, December.
    29. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00643580 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Li, Wenhui & Wilde, Christian, 2020. "Belief formation and belief updating under ambiguity: Evidence from experiments," SAFE Working Paper Series 251, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2020.
    2. Daiki Kishishita & Susumu Sato, 2021. "Optimal risk regulation of monopolists with subjective risk assessment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 251-279, June.
    3. Joaquín Gómez Miñambres & Mark Schneider, 2019. "Carrots and Sticks: Optimal Contracting with Skewness Preference and Ambiguity Aversion," Working Papers 19-02, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Gao, Yongling & Driouchi, Tarik & Bennett, David J., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion in buyer-seller relationships: A contingent-claims and social network explanation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 50-67.
    5. Zheng, Shiyuan & Wang, Kun & Chan, Felix T.S. & Fu, Xiaowen & Li, Zhi-Chun, 2022. "Subsidy on transport adaptation investment-modeling decisions under incomplete information and ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 103-129.

    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. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    2. Song, Yangwei, 2018. "Efficient Implementation with Interdependent Valuations and Maxmin Agents," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 92, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    4. De Castro, Luciano & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2018. "Uncertainty, efficiency and incentive compatibility: Ambiguity solves the conflict between efficiency and incentive compatibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 678-707.
    5. Carrasco, Vinicius & Farinha Luz, Vitor & Kos, Nenad & Messner, Matthias & Monteiro, Paulo & Moreira, Humberto, 2018. "Optimal selling mechanisms under moment conditions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 245-279.
    6. Christian Kellner, 2017. "The principal-agent problem with smooth ambiguity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(2), pages 83-119, June.
    7. Zheng, Mingli & Wang, Chong & Li, Chaozheng, 2015. "Optimal nonlinear pricing by a monopolist with information ambiguity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 60-66.
    8. Gao, Yongling & Driouchi, Tarik & Bennett, David J., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion in buyer-seller relationships: A contingent-claims and social network explanation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 50-67.
    9. Bhattacharjee, Swagata, 2022. "Dynamic contracting for innovation under ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 534-552.
    10. 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.
    11. Eisei Ohtaki, 2023. "Optimality in an OLG model with nonsmooth preferences," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 611-659, September.
    12. Takashi Ui, 2021. "Strategic Ambiguity in Global Games," Working Papers on Central Bank Communication 032, University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Economics.
    13. Lien, Donald & Yu, Chia-Feng (Jeffrey), 2017. "Production and hedging with optimism and pessimism under ambiguity," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 122-135.
    14. Eisei Ohtaki & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2014. "Optimality in a Stochastic OLG Model with Ambiguity," Working Papers e069, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    15. Swagata Bhattacharjee, 2019. "Dynamic Contracting for Innovation Under Ambiguity," Working Papers 1022, Ashoka University, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2019.
    16. Song, Yangwei, 2018. "Efficient implementation with interdependent valuations and maxmin agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 693-726.
    17. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers hal-04287896, HAL.
    19. Song, Yangwei, 2022. "Approximate Bayesian Implementation and Exact Maxmin Implementation: An Equivalence," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 362, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Eisei Ohtaki, 2016. "Optimality of the Friedman rule under ambiguity," Working Papers e103, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:hal:journl:hal-02878106. 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.