IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpga/0505005.html

A new approach to solve old problems

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Harin

    (Modern Humanitarian Academy)

Abstract

Arrangements (agreements, contracts, regulations, bargains, etc.) are widespread economic events and are the fundamental concept of the economic theory. Infringements (breaches, modifications, deviations, changes, etc.) of arrangements are common and have a significant importance for the economic theory. For many years now the arrangement infringements have lacked appropriate attention in the economic theory. This fact caused a number of theoretical and practical problems. In order to solve them a new approach is proposed, which considers the possibility of arrangement infringements. This article gives a simple example and a new result of the approach application.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Harin, 2005. "A new approach to solve old problems," Game Theory and Information 0505005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:0505005
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/game/papers/0505/0505005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veronika K–bberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2004. "A Simple Tool for Qualitatively Testing, Quantitatively Measuring, and Normatively Justifying Savage's Subjective Expected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 135-145, March.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    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. Alexander Harin, 2013. "Data dispersion near the boundaries: can it partially explain the problems of decision and utility theories?," Working Papers hal-00851022, HAL.
    2. Harin, Alexander, 2009. "Разрывы В Шкале Вероятностей. Расчет Величин Разрывов [Ruptures in the probability scale. Calculation of ruptures’ values]," MPRA Paper 16663, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Alexander Harin, 2005. "A Rational Irrational Man," Public Economics 0511005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Harin, Alexander, 2010. "Теорема О Существовании Разрывов В Шкале Вероятностей. Дискретный Случай [Theorem of existence of ruptures in probability scale. Discrete case]," MPRA Paper 23902, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Alexander Harin, 2005. "Gains and losses. The same or different choices?," International Finance 0508004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Harin, Alexander, 2010. "Теорема О Существовании Разрывов В Шкале Вероятностей. Ii [Theorem of existence of ruptures in the probability scale. II]," MPRA Paper 22633, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alexander Harin, 2006. "Principle of Uncertain Future," Microeconomics harin_alexander.34115-061, Socionet.
    8. Alexander Harin, 2006. "A Rational Irrational Man?," Microeconomics harin_alexander.34115-060, Socionet.
    9. Alexander Harin, 2005. "Gains and losses: the same or different choices? A “non-ideal” economics approach," International Finance 0509002, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. L'Haridon, Olivier, 2009. "Behavior in the loss domain: An experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 540-551, August.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    3. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    5. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    6. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    7. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Rullière, Jean-Louis & Vialle, Isabelle, 2008. "Monitoring optimistic agents," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 698-714, November.
    8. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    9. Bargiacchi, R., 2006. "Modelling and testing behavior in applications to climate change," Other publications TiSEM 81ad891a-d58b-4eb6-af6a-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Katarzyna Werner & Horst Zank, 2012. "Foundations for Prospect Theory Through Probability Midpoint Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1210, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    11. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    12. Langlais, Eric, 2008. "Le "risque judiciaire" et les licenciements en France: le point de vue de l'économie du risque [The "judicial risk" and lay-offs in France from the point of view of the economics of uncertainty]," MPRA Paper 8845, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    14. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    15. Mary Riddel & Sonja Kolstoe, 2013. "Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 191-213, April.
    16. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-250, July-Aug..
    17. Pavlo Blavatskyy, "undated". "Efficient elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions," IEW - Working Papers 211, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. repec:rza:wpaper:240 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Eyal Baharad & Doron Kliger, 2013. "Market failure in light of non-expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 599-619, October.
    20. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2000. "An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 221-231, July.
    21. Fontana, Giuseppe & Gerrard, Bill, 2004. "A Post Keynesian theory of decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 619-637, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
    • D - Microeconomics
    • E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics

    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:wpa:wuwpga:0505005. 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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.