IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-10-04-efd.html

Attitudes Toward Uncertainty Among the Poor: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Akay, Alpaslan
  • Martinsson, Peter
  • Medhin, Haileselassie
  • Trautmann, Stefan

Abstract

We looked at risk and ambiguity attitudes among Ethiopian peasants in one of the poorest regions of the world and compared their attitudes to a standard Western university student sample elicited by the same decision task. Strong risk aversion and ambiguity aversion were found with the Ethiopian peasants, and these attitudes are similar to those of the university students. Testing for the effect of socioeconomic variables on uncertainty attitudes showed that poor health increased both risk and ambiguity aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Akay, Alpaslan & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Trautmann, Stefan, 2010. "Attitudes Toward Uncertainty Among the Poor: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-04-efd, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-10-04-efd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-10-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2013. "Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-25, February.
    2. Ross, Nicholas & Santos, Paulo & Capon, Timothy, 2012. "Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: experimental evidence from a developing economy," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126492, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Dean Spears, 2013. "Poverty and probability: aspiration and aversion to compound lotteries in El Salvador and India," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 263-284, September.
    4. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    5. Choudhury, Hari K. & Goswami, Kishor, 2014. "Do Different Approaches to Measurement of Risk Behaviour Yield Different Results?," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 27(01).
    6. Schröder, David & Cavatorta, Elisa, 2014. "Measuring Ambiguity Preferences," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100593, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2009. "Decision theory under uncertainty," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429573, HAL.
    8. Lars Osberg & Andrew Sharpe, 2014. "Measuring Economic Insecurity in Rich and Poor Nations," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(S1), pages 53-76, May.
    9. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Chmura, Thorsten & Martinsson, Peter, 2012. "Risk attitudes, development, and growth: Macroeconomic evidence from experiments in 30 countries," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2012-401, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    11. Bergheim, Ralf & Roos, Michael W. M., 2013. "Intuition and Reasoning in Choosing Ambiguous and Risky Lotteries," Ruhr Economic Papers 440, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    12. Choudhury, Hari K. & Goswami, Kishor, 2013. "Determinants of expansion of area under jatropha plantation in North East India: A Tobit analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 46-52.
    13. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-10-04-efd. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.