首页> 外文期刊>Economics & philosophy >ECONOMIC (IR)RATIONALITY IN RISK ANALYSIS
【24h】

ECONOMIC (IR)RATIONALITY IN RISK ANALYSIS

机译:风险分析中的经济(不合理)性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Mainstream risk analysis deviates in at least two important respects from the rationality ideal of mainstream economics. First, expected utility maximization is not applied in a consistent way. It is applied to endodoxastic uncertainty, i.e. the uncertainty (or risk) expressed in a risk assessment, but in many cases not to metadoxastic uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty about which of several competing assessments is correct. Instead, a common approach to metadoxastic uncertainty is to only take the most plausible assessment into account. This will typically lead to risk-prone deviations from risk-neutrality. Secondly, risks and benefits for different persons are added to form a total value of risk. Such calculations are used to support the view that one should accept being exposed to a risk if it brings greater benefits for others. This is in stark contrast to modern Paretian welfare economics, that refrains from interindividual comparisons and does not require people to accept a disadvantage because it brings a larger advantage for others.
机译:主流风险分析在至少两个重要方面偏离了主流经济学的理性理想。首先,期望效用最大化没有以一致的方式应用。它适用于内胚乳不确定性,即风险评估中表达的不确定性(或风险),但在许多情况下,不适用于亚稳性不确定性(即,关于多个竞争评估中哪一项是正确的不确定性)。取而代之的是,通常的方法是仅考虑最合理的评估。这通常会导致易于偏离风险中立性的风险。其次,将不同人的风险和利益相加,以形成风险的总价值。这种计算被用来支持这样的观点,即如果一个风险可以给其他人带来更大的利益,则应该接受该风险。这与现代的帕累特福利经济学形成了鲜明的对比,后者避免了个体之间的比较,并且不需要人们接受不利条件,因为它为他人带来了更大的利益。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Economics & philosophy》 |2006年第2期|p.231-241|共11页
  • 作者

    SVEN OVE HANSSON;

  • 作者单位

    Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 f;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号