IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparative Risk Aversion for State-Dependent Preferences


  • Robert G. Chambers

    () (Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park)

  • John Quiggin

    () (Department of Economics, University of Queensland)


The idea that preferences may be state-dependent fits naturally with an analysis of uncertainty based on explicit representation of random variables as state-contingent consumption or production bundles. In this paper we show how these concepts of risk-aversion may be extended to the case of state-dependent preferences, whether or not these preferences are autocomparable in the sense of Karni. We characterize autocomparability as a special case. We show how standard comparative static results, originally derived for the state-independent expected utility model, may be extended to general state-dependent preferences, without the requirement for additive separability.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert G. Chambers & John Quiggin, 2005. "Comparative Risk Aversion for State-Dependent Preferences," Risk & Uncertainty Working Papers WP5R05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsm:riskun:r05_5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Chambers,Robert G. & Quiggin,John, 2000. "Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521785235, March.
    2. Karni, Edi, 1987. "Generalized Expected Utility Analysis of Risk Aversion with State-Dependent Preference," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 229-240, February.
    3. Grant, Simon & Karni, Edi, 2004. "A theory of quantifiable beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 515-546, August.
    4. Karni, Edi, 1999. "Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities When Preferences Are State-Dependent," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 479-486, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:rsm:riskun:r05_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Adamson). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.