On the foundations of mean-variance analyses

Let (, ) and (, ) be mean-standard deviation pairs of two probability distributions on the real line. Mean-variance analyses presume that the preferred distribution depends solely on these pairs, with primary preference given to larger mean and smaller variance. This presumption, in conjunction with the assumption that one distribution is better than a second distribution if the mass of the first is completely to the right of the mass of the second, implies that (, ) is preferred to (, ) if and only if either > or ( = and < ), provided that the set of distributions is sufficiently rich. The latter provision fails if the outcomes of all distributions lie in a finite interval, but then it is still possible to arrive at more liberal dominance conclusions between (, ) and (, ).This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research.     

Far-sighted equilibria in 2 × 2, non-cooperative,repeated games

Consider a two-person simultaneous-move game in strategic form. Suppose this game is played over and over at discrete points in time. Suppose, furthermore, that communication is not possible, but nevertheless we observe some regularity in the sequence of outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide an explanation for the question why such regularity might persist for many (i.e., infinite) periods.Each player, when contemplating a deviation, considers a sequential-move game, roughly speaking of the following form: if I change my strategy this period, then in the next my opponent will take his strategy b and afterwards I can switch to my strategy a, but then I am worse off since at that outcome my opponent has no incentive to change anymore, whatever I do. Theoretically, however, there is no end to such reaction chains. In case that deviating by some player gives him less utility in the long run than before deviation, we say that the original regular sequence of outcomes is far-sighted stable for that player. It is a far-sighted equilibrium if it is far-sighted stable for both players.     

Rational choice and economic behavior

This paper discusses several concepts that can be used to provide a foundation for a unified, theory of rational, economic behavior. First, decision-making is defined to be a process that takes place with reference to both subjective and objective time, that distinguishes between plans and actions, between information and states and that explicitly incorporates the collection and processing of information. This conception of decision making is then related to several important aspects of behavioral economics, the dependence of values on experience, the use of behavioral rules, the occurrence of multiple goals and environmental feedback.Our conclusions are (1) the non-transitivity of observed or revealed preferences is a characteristic of learning and hence is to be expected of rational decision-makers; (2) the learning of values through experience suggests the sensibleness of short time horizons and the making of choices according to flexible utility; (3) certain rules of thumb used to allow for risk are closely related to principles of Safety-First and can also be based directly on the hypothesis that the feeling of risk (the probability of disaster) is identified with extreme departures from recently executed decisions. (4) The maximization of a hierarchy of goals, or of a lexicographical utility function, is closely related to the search for feasibility and the practice of satisficing. (5) When the dim perception of environmental feedback and the effect of learning on values are acknowledged the intertemporal optimality of planned decision trajectories is seen to be a characteristic of subjective not objective time. This explains why decision making is so often best characterized by rolling plans. In short, we find that economic man - like any other - is an existential being whose plans are based on hopes and fears and whose every act involves a leap of faith.This paper is based on a talk presented at the Conference, New Beginnings in Economics, Akron, Ohio, March 15, 1969. Work on this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.     

Utility theory and the Bayesian paradigm

In this paper, a problem for utility theory - that it would have an agent who was compelled to play Russian Roulette with one revolver or another, to pay as much to have a six-shooter with four bullets relieved of one bullet before playing with it, as he would be willing to pay to have a six-shooter with two bullets emptied - is reviewed. A less demanding Bayesian theory is described, that would have an agent maximize expected values of possible total consequence of his actions. And utility theory is located within that theory as valid for agents who satisfy certain formal conditions, that is, for agents who are, in terms of that more general theory, indifferent to certain dimensions of risk. Raiffa- and Savage-style arguments for its more general validity are then resisted. Addenda are concerned with implications for game theory, and relations between utilities and values.     

Fairness,Public Good,and Emotional Aspects of Punishment Behavior

We report an experiment on two treatments of an ultimatum minigame. In one treatment, responders reactions are hidden to proposers. We observe high rejection rates reflecting responders intrinsic resistance to unfairness. In the second treatment, proposers are informed, allowing for dynamic effects over eight rounds of play. The higher rejection rates can be attributed to responders provision of a public good: Punishment creates a group reputation for being tough and effectively educate proposers. Since rejection rates with informed proposers drop to the level of the treatment with non-informed proposers, the hypothesis of responders enjoyment of overt punishment is not supported.     

Simulation methodology

Operational researchers, management scientists, and industrial engineers have been asked by Russell Ackoff to become systems scientists, yet he stated that Systems Science is not a science. (TIMS Interfaces, 2 (4), 41). A. C. Fabergé (Science 184, 1330) notes that the original intent of operational researchers was that they be scientists, trained to observe. Hugh J. Miser (Operations Research 22, 903), views operations research as a science, noting that its progress indeed is of a cyclic nature.The present paper delineates explicitly the attributes of simulation methodology. Simulation is shown to be both an art and a science; its methodology, properly used, is founded both on confirmed (validated) observation and scrutinised (verified) art work.The paper delineates the existing procedures by which computer-directed models can be cyclically scrutinised and confirmed and therefore deemed credible. The complexities of the phenomena observed by social scientists are amenable to human understanding by properly applied simulation; the methodology of the scientist of systems (the systemic scientist).

---

Résumé Russell Ackoff propose à ceux qui s'occupent de recherches opérationnelle, industrielle, et de gestion, d'agir en systems scientists, et pourtant il affirme que systems science n'est pas une science (TIMS Interfaces 2 (4), 41). A. C. Fabergé (Science 184, 1330) remarque, qu'à l'origine, le but de ceux qui s'occupaient de recherche opérationnelle était d'agir en hommes de science instruits à observer. Hugh J. Miser (Operational Research 22, 903) considère la recherche opérationnelle comme science, notant que ses progrès sont en effet de nature cyclique.La présente étude délimite explicitement les attributs de la méthode de la simulation. Il est démontré que la simulation est à la fois un art et une science; sa méthode, lorsqu'utilisée correctement, repose sur l'observation validée et le modèle vérifié.L'étude délimite les moyens actuels dont nous disposons pour vérifier et valider cycliquement les modèles bâtis à l'aide d'ordinateurs, établissant ainsi leur crédibilité. La nature complexe des phénomènes étudiés par les sciences sociales peut être comprise à l'aide de la simulation: la méthode dont se servent les hommes de science qui étudient les systèmes (les scientistes systémiques).

     

Liberals,information and Webster's principles

Critiques two social choice principles employed by Webster's analysis of using information to resolve Sen's paradox of the Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal.     

The general relevance of the impossibility teorem in smooth social choice

A complete classification theorem for voting processes on a smooth choice spaceW of dimensionw is presented. Any voting process is classified by two integersv ^* () andw(), in terms of the existence or otherwise of the optima set, IO(), and the cycle set IC().In dimension belowv ^* () the cycle set is always empty, and in dimension abovew() the optima set is nearly always empty while the cycle set is open dense and path con nected. In the latter case agenda manipulation results in any outcome.For admissible (compact, convex) choice spaces, the two sets are related by the general equilibrium result that IO() union IC() is non-empty. This in turn implies existence of optima in low dimensions. The equilibrium theorem is used to examine voting games with an infinite electorate, and the nature ofstructure induced equilibria, induced by jurisdictional restrictions.This material is based on work supported by a Nuffield Foundation grant.     

Rational preference: Decision theory as a theory of practical rationality

In general, the technical apparatus of decision theory is well developed. It has loads of theorems, and they can be proved from axioms. Many of the theorems are interesting, and useful both from a philosophical and a practical perspective. But decision theory does not have a well agreed upon interpretation. Its technical terms, in particular, utility and preference do not have a single clear and uncontroversial meaning.How to interpret these terms depends, of course, on what purposes in pursuit of which one wants to put decision theory to use. One might want to use it as a model of economic decision-making, in order to predict the behavior of corporations or of the stock market. In that case, it might be useful to interpret the technical term utility as meaning money profit. Decision theory would then be an empirical theory. I want to look into the question of what utility could mean, if we want decision theory to function as a theory of practical rationality. I want to know whether it makes good sense to think of practical rationality as fully or even partly accounted for by decision theory. I shall lay my cards on the table: I hope it does make good sense to think of it that way. For, I think, if Humeans are right about practical rationality, then decision theory must play a very large part in their account. And I think Humeanism has very strong attractions.     

A μ-σ-Risk Aversion Paradox and Wealth Dependent Utility

We report a surprising property of --preferences: the assumption of nonincreasing relative risk aversion implies the optimal portfolio being riskless. We discuss a solution of that paradox using wealth dependent utility functions in detail. Using the revealed preference theory we show that (general, i.e. not necessary -) wealth dependent utility functions can be characterized by Wald's axiom.     

Constructs and empirical basis in theories of economic behavior

Theories of economic behavior often use as-if-languages: for example, analytical sentences or definitions are used as if they were synthetic and factual-normative theoretical constructs are used as if they were empirical concepts. Such as-if-languages impede the acquisition of knowledge and are apt to encourage the wrong assessment of actual research strategies. The author's criticism is first leveled at revealed-preference theory. In this theory observed behavior is often understood in an empirical sense although it is a pure theoretical construct. Another example can be found in von Mises' representations on marketing behavior: here theoretical valuations are used to achieve a spurious streamlining of reality. Result: Scientists should not ogle with reality if they have nothing to say about it.     

Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity

The Ellsberg Paradox documented the aversion to ambiguity in the probability of winning a prize. Using an original sample of 266 business owners and managers facing risks from climate change, this paper documents the presence of departures from rationality in both directions. Both ambiguity-seeking behavior and ambiguity-averse behavior are evident. People exhibit fear effects of ambiguity for small probabilities of suffering a loss and hope effects for large probabilities. Estimates of the crossover point from ambiguity aversion (fear) to ambiguity seeking (hope) place this value between 0.3 and 0.7 for the risk per decade lotteries considered, with empirical estimates indicating a crossover mean risk of about 0.5. Attitudes toward the degree of ambiguity also reverse at the crossover point.     

Disparate goods and Rawls' difference principle: A social choice theoretic treatment

Rawls' Difference Principle asserts that a basic economic structure is just if it makes the worst off people as well off as is feasible. How well off someone is is to be measured by an index of primary social goods. It is this index that gives content to the principle, and Rawls gives no adequate directions for constructing it. In this essay a version of the difference principle is proposed that fits much of what Rawls says, but that makes use of no index. Instead of invoking an index of primary social goods, the principle formulated here invokes a partial ordering of prospects for opportunities.     

Utilities for distributive justice

This paper falls within the field of Distributive Justice and (as the title indicates) addresses itself specifically to the meshing problem. Briefly stated, the meshing problem is the difficulty encountered when one tries to aggregate the two parameters of beneficence and equity in a way that results in determining which of two or more alternative utility distributions is most just. A solution to this problem, in the form of a formal welfare measure, is presented in the paper. This formula incorporates the notions of equity and beneficence (which are defined earlier by the author) and weighs them against each other to compute a numerical value which represents the degree of justice a given distribution possesses. This value can in turn be used comparatively to select which utility scheme, of those being considered, is best.Three fundamental adequacy requirements, which any acceptable welfare measuring method must satisfy, are presented and subsequently demonstrated to be formally deducible as theorems of the author's system. A practical application of the method is then considered as well as a comparison of it with Nicholas Rescher's method (found in his book, Distributive Justice). The conclusion reached is that Rescher's system is unacceptable, since it computes counter-intuitive results. Objections to the author's welfare measure are considered and answered. Finally, a suggestion for expanding the system to cover cases it was not originally designed to handle (i.e. situations where two alternative utility distributions vary with regard to the number of individuals they contain) is made. The conclusion reached at the close of the paper is that an acceptable solution to the meshing problem has been established.I would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Michael Tooley whose positive suggestions and critical comments were invaluable in the writting of this paper.     

A systems concept of society: Beyond individualism and holism

Three rival views of the nature of society are sketched: individualism, holism, and systemism. The ontological and methodological components of these doctrines are formulated and analyzed. Individualism is found wanting for making no room for social relations or emergent properties; holism, for refusing to analyze both of them and for losing sight of the individual.A systems view is then sketched, and it is essentially this: A society is a system of interrelated individuals sharing an environment. This commonsensical idea is formalized as follows: A society is representable as an ordered triple Composition of , Environment of , Structure of , where the structure of is the collection of relations (in particular connections) among components of . Included in the structure of any are the relations of work and of managing which are regarded as typical of human society in contrast to animal societies.Other concepts formalized in the paper are those of subsystem (in particular social subsystem), resultant property, and emergent or gestalt property. The notion of subsystem is used to build the notion of an F-sector of a society, defined as the set of all social subsystems performing a certain function F (e.g. the set of all schools). In turn, an F-institution is defined as the family of all F-sectors. Being abstractions, institutions should not be attributed a life and a mind of their own. But, since an institution is analyzable in terms of concrete totalities (namely social subsystems), it does not comply with the individualist requirement either.It is also shown that the systems view is inherent in any mathematical model in social science, since any such schema is essentially a set of individuals endowed with a certain structure. And it is stressed that the systems view combines the desirable features of both individualism and holism.     

Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information

Aumann's (1987) theorem shows that correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality. We extend this result to games with incomplete information.First, we rely on Harsanyi's (1967) model and represent the underlying multiperson decision problem as a fixed game with imperfect information. We survey four definitions of correlated equilibrium which have appeared in the literature. We show that these definitions are not equivalent to each other. We prove that one of them fits Aumann's framework; the agents normal form correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality in games with incomplete information.We also follow a universal Bayesian approach based on Mertens and Zamir's (1985) construction of the universal beliefs space. Hierarchies of beliefs over independent variables (states of nature) and dependent variables (actions) are then constructed simultaneously. We establish that the universal set of Bayesian solutions satisfies another extension of Aumann's theorem.We get the following corollary: once the types of the players are not fixed by the model, the various definitions of correlated equilibrium previously considered are equivalent.     

Practical reason or metapreferences? an undogmatic defense of kantian morality

This article presents the thesis that a critique of decisions is not necessarily (except in the trivial sense) a critique of preferences. This thesis runs contrary to the fundamental assumption in economic theory that a critique of decisions will always simultaneously be a critique of (subjective) preferences, since decision behavior is after all a manifestation of preferences. If this thesis is right, then the paradigm of so-called instrumental rationality is in serious trouble, not for external reasons but because of imminent inconsistencies. The thesis is developed in five parts: I. A preliminary remark to the economic theory of rationality in general. II. The cooperation problem as a challenge to the economic theory of rationality. III. An account of the most interesting attempt to save the theory. IV. A critique of that attempt. V. And the conclusion: practical reason is concerned with actions and not with preferences.     

A strategic foundation for the cooperator's advantage

Orbell and Dawes develop a non-game theoretic heuristic that yields a cooperator's advantage by allowing players to project their own cooperate-defect choices onto potential partners (1991, p. 515). With appropriate parameter values their heuristic yields a cooperative environment, but the cooperation depends, simply, on optimism about others' behavior (1991, p. 526). In earlier work, Dawes (1989) established a statistical foundation for such optimism. In this paper, I adapt some of the concerns of Dawes (1989) and develop a game theoretic model based on a modification of the Harsanyi structure of games with incomplete information (1967–1968). I show that the commonly made conjecture that strategic play is incompatible with cooperation and the cooperator's advantage is false.     

Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence

Choices between gambles show systematic violations of stochastic dominance. For example, most people choose ($6, .05; $91, .03; $99, .92) over ($6, .02; $8, .03; $99, .95), violating dominance. Choices also violate two cumulative independence conditions: (1) If S = (z, r; x, p; y, q) R = (z, r; x, p; y, q) then S = (x, r; y, p + q) R = (x, r + p; y, q). (2) If S = (x, p; y, q; z, r) R = (x, p; y, q; z, r) then S = (x, p + q; y, r) R = (x, p; y, q + r), where 0 < z < x < x < y < y < y < z.Violations contradict any utility theory satisfying transivity, outcome monotonicity, coalescing, and comonotonic independence. Because rank-and sign-dependent utility theories, including cumulative prospect theory (CPT), satisfy these properties, they cannot explain these results.However, the configural weight model of Birnbaum and McIntosh (1996) predicted the observed violations of stochastic dominance, cumulative independence, and branch independence. This model assumes the utility of a gamble is a weighted average of outcomes\' utilities, where each configural weight is a function of the rank order of the outcome\'s value among distinct values and that outcome\'s probability. The configural weight, TAX model with the same number of parameters as CPT fit the data of most individuals better than the model of CPT.     

Group decision making under uncertainty a note on the aggregation of “ordinal probabilities”

This paper is a first attempt to study the problem of aggregation of individual ordinal probabilistic beliefs in an Arrowian framework. We exhibit some properties an aggregation rule must fulfil; in particular we prove the existence of a quasi-dictator.