Abstract
This paper offers a modified version of the certainty equivalence (CE) theory of utility for uncertain prospects and a new set of axioms as its basis. It shows that the CE and the von Neumann-Morgenstern (NM) approaches to uncertainty are opposite in spirit: The CE approach represents a flight from the world of uncertainty to the rules of certainty while the NM approach represents a flight from the world of certainty to one of uncertainty. The two approaches differ even in their treatment of compound prospects and their actuarially identical simple counterparts.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ArchibaldG. C., ‘Utility, Risk and Linearity,’ Journal of Political Economy 67 (1959), 437–450.
ArrowK. J., Essays in the Theory of Risk-bearing, Markham, Chicago, 1971.
BeckerG. M., DeGrootM. H. and MarschakJ., ‘An Experimental Study of some Stochastic Models for Wagers,’ Behavioral Science 8 (1963), 199–202.
BorchK., The Economics of Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1968.
CohenJ., Behaviour in Uncertainty, Allen and Unwin, London, 1964.
EllsbergE., ‘Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (1961), 643–669.
FellnerW., ‘Distortion of Subjective Probabilities as a Reaction to Uncertainty’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (1961), 670–689.
FellnerW., Probability and Profit, Irwin, Homewood, Ill., 1965.
FishburnP. C., ‘On Handa's “New Theory of Cardinal Utility” and the Maximization of Expected Return’, Journal of Political Economy 86 (1978) 321–324.
FriedmanM. and SavageL. J., ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’, Journal of Political Economy 56 (1948), 279–304.
Georgescu-RoegenN., ‘The Nature of Expectation and Uncertainty’, in M. J.Bowman (ed.), Expectation, Uncertainty and Business Behaviour, Social Science Research Council, New York, 1958.
HandaJ. C., ‘Risk, Probabilities and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility’, Journal of Political Economy 85 (1977), 97–122.
HicksJ. R., Critical Essays in Monetary Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967.
Keynes, J. M., The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Macmillan, London (Various years).
KnightF. H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1921.
KrantzD. H., LuceR. D., SuppesP., and TverskyA., Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I, Academic Press, New York, 1971.
LancasterK. J., ‘A New Approach to Consumer Theory’, Journal of Political Economy 74 (1966), 132–157.
LuceR. D., and KrantzD. H., ‘Conditional Expected Utility’, Econometrica 39 (1971), 253–71.
MishanE. J., ‘Choices Involving Risk: Simple Steps Towards an Ordinalist Analysis’, Economic Journal 86 (1976), 759–777.
MostellerF., and NogeeP., ‘An Experimental Measurement of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy 59 (1951), 371–404.
NiehansJ., ‘Reflections on Shackle, Probability, and our Uncertainty about Uncertainty’, Metroeconomica 11 (1959), 74–88.
RaiffaH., ‘Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (1961), 690–695.
RothenbergJ., The Measurement of Social Welfare, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1961.
SamuelsonP. A., ‘Risk and Uncertainty: A Fallacy of Large Numbers’, Scientia 57 (1963), 1–6.
SamuelsonP. A., The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., vol. I, 1966.
SavageL. J., The Foundations of Statistics, Dover Publications, New York, 1972.
ShackleG. L. S., Decision, Order and Time in Human Affairs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.
TverskyA., ‘Additivity, Utility and Subjective Probability’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 4 (1967) 175–201.
WallstenT. S., ‘Subjectively Expected Utility Theory and Subjects' Probability Estimates: Use of Measurement-free Techniques’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 88 (1971) 31–40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Handa, J. Decisions under imperfect knowledge: The certainty equivalence theory as an alternative to the von Neumann-Morgenstern theory of uncertainty. Erkenntnis 20, 295–328 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166391
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166391