[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iep/wpidep/0705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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.
    2. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, 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. Kranich, Laurence, 1997. "Equalizing opportunities through public education when innate abilities are unobservable," UC3M Working papers. Economics 7216, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    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. 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).
    6. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, 2004. "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    9. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2006. "Reply to J. E. Roemer's Review of Kolm, S.: Macrojustice: The Political Economy of Fairness," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 87-91, June.
    14. Antonin Macé, 2017. "Voting with evaluations: characterizations of evaluative voting and range voting," Working Papers halshs-01222200, HAL.
    15. Tommy Andersson, 2008. "Non‐Linear Pricing And Equality Of Opportunity," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 541-556, November.
    16. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "Consequences, opportunities, and generalized consequentialism and non-consequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 293-304, August.
    17. Jun Matsuyama & Kenji Mori, 2011. "Freedom And Achievement Of Well‐Being And Adaptive Dynamics Of Capabilities," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 494-511, July.
    18. Roland Iwan Luttens & Erwin Ooghe, 2007. "Is it Fair to ‘Make Work Pay’?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 599-626, November.
    19. Kristoffer Berg & Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2020. "The Equal-Sacrifice Social Welfare Function with an Application to Optimal Income Taxation," CESifo Working Paper Series 8505, CESifo.
    20. Yongsheng Xu & Naoki Yoshihara, 2022. "Bargaining theory over opportunity assignments and the egalitarian solution," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 198-219, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Complete Uncertainty; Ignorance; Ranking Sets; Probability; Expected Utility of their Consequences for Some Utility Function.;
    All these 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.