IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iep/wpidep/0705.html

Ranking Completely Uncertain Decisions by the Uniform Expected Utility Criterion

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We provide an axiomatic characterization of a family of criteria for ranking completely uncertain decisions. A completely uncertain decision is described by the set of all its consequences (assumed to be finite). Each of the criterions characterized can be thought of as assigning to all consequences of a decision an equal probability of occurrence and as comparing decisions on the basis of the expected utility of their consequences for some utility function.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Gravel & Thierry Marchant & Arunava Sen, 2007. "Ranking Completely Uncertain Decisions by the Uniform Expected Utility Criterion," IDEP Working Papers 0705, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France, revised 12 Jul 2007.
    • Handle: RePEc:iep:wpidep:0705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.idep-fr.org/IMG/document/dt/dt0705.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2000. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Economic Environments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 48-71, July.
    2. Maniquet, Francois, 1998. "An equal right solution to the compensation-responsibility dilemma," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 185-202, March.
    3. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2004. "Liberty and distribution: Macrojustice from social freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 113-145, February.
    4. Eric Maskin, 1978. "A Theorem on Utilitarianism," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 93-96.
    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. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    2. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.

    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. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2010. "On real economic freedom," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 351-375, September.
    2. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    3. Baujard, Antoinette & Gavrel, Frédéric & Igersheim, Herrade & Laslier, Jean-François & Lebon, Isabelle, 2018. "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 14-28.
    4. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    5. Jonsson, Adam & Voorneveld, Mark, 2014. "Utilitarianism for infinite utility streams: summable differences and finite averages," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 747, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 15 Apr 2014.
    6. Maier-Rigaud, Frank P. & Apesteguia, José, 2003. "The Role of Choice in Social Dilemma Experiments," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 22/2003, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    7. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    8. St'ephane Gonzalez & Nikolaos Pnevmatikos, 2023. "A Story of Consistency: Bridging the Gap between Bentham and Rawls Foundations," Papers 2303.07488, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    9. James Boudreau & Vicki Knoblauch, 2013. "Preferences and the price of stability in matching markets," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 565-589, April.
    10. Levin, Vladimir L., 2009. "New axiomatic characterizations of utilitarianism," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 15-24, July.
    11. Ernesto Savaglio & Stefano Vannucci, 2009. "On the volume-ranking of opportunity sets in economic environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 1-24, June.
    12. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, "undated". "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    13. Kotaro Suzumura, 2002. "Introduction to social choice and welfare," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 442, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    14. repec:qeh:ophiwp:ophiwp035 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    16. repec:qeh:ophiwp:ophiwp025 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Conceptions of freedom and ranking opportunity sets. A typology," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 200611, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    18. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    19. Kaname Miyagishima, 2010. "Ranking linear budget sets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(1), pages 163-173, June.
    20. Yannai A. Gonczarowski & Ella Segev, 2024. "Quantifying Inefficiency," Papers 2412.11984, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    21. Macé, Antonin, 2018. "Voting with evaluations: Characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 10-17.
    22. Andrew McKay & Oliver Morrissey & Charlotte Vaillant, 1998. "Aggregate Export and Food Crop Supply Response in Tanzania," Discussion Papers 98/4, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:iep:wpidep:0705. 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: Gregory Cornu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amseafr.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.