Dynamically consistent objective and subjective rationality

7Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A group of experts, for instance climate scientists, is to advise a decision maker about the choice between two policies f and g. Consider the following decision rule. If all experts agree that the expected utility of f is higher than the expected utility of g, the unanimity rule applies, and f is chosen. Otherwise, the precautionary principle is implemented and the policy yielding the highest minimal expected utility is chosen. This decision rule may lead to time inconsistencies when adding an intermediate period of partial resolution of uncertainty. We show how to coherently reassess the initial set of experts’ beliefs so that precautionary choices become dynamically consistent: new beliefs should be added until one obtains the smallest “rectangular set” that contains the original one. Our analysis offers a novel behavioral characterization of rectangularity and a prescriptive way to aggregate opinions in order to avoid sure regret.

References Powered by Scopus

Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms

4633Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior

2589Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C

2207Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Ambiguity and partial Bayesian updating

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Objective rationality and recursive multiple priors

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bastianello, L., Faro, J. H., & Santos, A. (2022). Dynamically consistent objective and subjective rationality. Economic Theory, 74(2), 477–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-022-01437-1

Readers over time

‘20‘22‘23‘24‘2500.511.52

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

75%

Researcher 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2

40%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

20%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

20%

Philosophy 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0