IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/1703.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on the Probabilistic Properties and Tail Risks of Environmental-Policy Variables

Author

Listed:
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Nikitas Pittis

    (University of Piraeus, Greece)

  • Panagiotis Samartzis
  • Nikolaos Englezos
  • Andreas Papandreou

Abstract

The concept of ambiguity with respect to decision making about climate change has recently attracted a lot of research interest. The standard approach for introducing ambiguity into this framework is to assume that the decision maker (DM) exhibits ambiguity aversion, with the latter being represented by axioms on DMs preferences different than Savageâ��s (sure-thing principle). As a result, DM is deprived of the property of probabilistic sophistication, since she is faced with either multiple prior probability functions, or a single but incoherent one (capacity). This paper approaches the issue of ambiguity with respect to climate change from a different perspective. In particular, we assume that ambiguity does exists but it does not affect the formation of DMs prior probability function. Instead, it a�¤ects the formation of her posterior probability function. Specifically, we assume that there are n experts, who supply DM with probabilistic input. Hence, although DM has a well defined prior (formed before any expert information on objective probabilities has arrived), she cannot decide which piece of information should conditionalize upon (defer to). We refer to this type of ambiguity as "deferential ambiguity" and show that it affects both DM and the experts. We also introduce a second type of ambiguity, which is solely born by the experts. This type of ambiguity stems from the experts potential inability to discern DMs preferences. This ambiguity is referred to as "preferential ambiguity" in the paper. The main objective of the paper is to analyze the possible interactions between the two types of ambiguity mentioned above and to assess their impact on the probabilistic properties (in particular, tail risks) of environmental-policy variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis & Nikolaos Englezos & Andreas Papandreou, 2017. "Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on the Probabilistic Properties and Tail Risks of Environmental-Policy Variables," DEOS Working Papers 1703, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:1703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2017.Uncertainty.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    3. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 249-284, November.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    5. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "Rejoinder: The “Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 357-369, 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. Francesco Cavazza & Francesco Galioto & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2020. "Digital Irrigated Agriculture: Towards a Framework for Comprehensive Analysis of Decision Processes under Uncertainty," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, October.

    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. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis & Nikolaos Englezos & Andreas Papandreou, 2017. "Alternative Types of Ambiguity and their Effects on Climate Change Regulation," DEOS Working Papers 1706, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Dimmock, Stephen G. & Kouwenberg, Roy & Mitchell, Olivia S. & Peijnenburg, Kim, 2016. "Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice puzzles: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 559-577.
    3. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    4. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Billot, Antoine & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2018. "Expected utility without parsimony," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 14-21.
    6. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "On dynamic consistency in ambiguous games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 241-249.
    7. Spyros Galanis, 2021. "Dynamic consistency, valuable information and subjective beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1497, June.
    8. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    9. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    11. Nabil I. Al-Najjar, 2015. "A Bayesian Framework for the Precautionary Principle," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S2), pages 337-365.
    12. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    13. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2011. "Dynamic consistency for non-expected utility preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 493-518, October.
    14. Christoph Kuzmics & Brian W. Rogers & Xiannong Zhang, 2024. "Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 85-104, August.
    15. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    16. Gumen, Anna & Savochkin, Andrei, 2013. "Dynamically stable preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1487-1508.
    17. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis, 2024. "Comparative Ignorance as an Explanation of Ambiguity Aversion and Ellsberg Choices: A Survey with a New Proposal for Bayesian Training," DEOS Working Papers 2408, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    18. Daniel Heyen, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 373-386, May.
    19. Chen, Daniel L., 2024. "Is ambiguity aversion a preference? Ambiguity aversion without asymmetric information," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Olga Metzger & Thomas Spengler, 2019. "Modeling rational decisions in ambiguous situations: a multi-valued logic approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 271-290, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision making on climate change; ambiguity; deep uncertainty; Savage�s sure-thing principle; deferential ambiguity; preferential ambiguity; tail risks of environmental-policy variables.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D - Microeconomics

    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:aue:wpaper:1703. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.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.