Utilitarian Preferences With Multiple Priors

This paper proposes a method for aggregating individual preferences in the context of uncertainty. Individuals are assumed to abide by Savage's model of Subjective Expected Utility, in which everyone has his/her own utility and subjective probability. Disagreement on probabilities among individuals gives rise to uncertainty at the societal level, and thus society may entertain a set of probabilities rather than only one. We assume that social preference admits a Maxmin Expected Utility representation. In this context, two Pareto‐type conditions are shown to be equivalent to social utility being a weighted average of individual utilities and the social set of priors containing only weighted averages of individual priors. Thus, society respects consensus among individuals' beliefs and does not add ambiguity beyond disagreement on beliefs. We also deal with the case in which society does not rule out any individual belief.     

Representing Preferences with a Unique Subjective State Space

We extend Kreps' (1979) analysis of preference for flexibility, reinterpreted by Kreps (1992) as a model of unforeseen contingencies. We enrich the choice set, consequently obtaining uniqueness results that were not possible in Kreps' model. We consider several representations and allow the agent to prefer commitment in some contingencies. In the representations, the agent acts as if she had coherent beliefs about a set of possible future (ex post) preferences, each of which is an expected‐utility preference. We show that this set of ex post preferences, called the subjective state space, is essentially unique given the restriction that all ex post preferences are expected‐utility preferences and is minimal even without this restriction. Because the subjective state space is identified, the way ex post utilities are aggregated into an ex ante ranking is also essentially unique. Hence when a representation that is additive across states exists, the additivity is meaningful in the sense that all representations are intrinsically additive. Uniqueness enables us to show that the size of the subjective state space provides a measure of the agent's uncertainty about future contingencies and that the way the states are aggregated indicates whether these contingencies lead to a desire for flexibility or commitment.     

Understanding Mechanisms Underlying Peer Effects: Evidence From a Field Experiment on Financial Decisions

Using a high‐stakes field experiment conducted with a financial brokerage, we implement a novel design to separately identify two channels of social influence in financial decisions, both widely studied theoretically. When someone purchases an asset, his peers may also want to purchase it, both because they learn from his choice (“social learning”) and because his possession of the asset directly affects others' utility of owning the same asset (“social utility”). We randomize whether one member of a peer pair who chose to purchase an asset has that choice implemented, thus randomizing his ability to possess the asset. Then, we randomize whether the second member of the pair: (i) receives no information about the first member, or (ii) is informed of the first member's desire to purchase the asset and the result of the randomization that determined possession. This allows us to estimate the effects of learning plus possession, and learning alone, relative to a (no information) control group. We find that both social learning and social utility channels have statistically and economically significant effects on investment decisions. Evidence from a follow‐up survey reveals that social learning effects are greatest when the first (second) investor is financially sophisticated (financially unsophisticated); investors report updating their beliefs about asset quality after learning about their peer's revealed preference; and, they report motivations consistent with “keeping up with the Joneses” when learning about their peer's possession of the asset. These results can help shed light on the mechanisms underlying herding behavior in financial markets and peer effects in consumption and investment decisions.     

Finite Order Implications of Common Priors

I characterize the implications of the common prior assumption for finite orders of beliefs about beliefs at a state and show that in finite models, the only such implications are those stemming from the weaker assumption of a common support. More precisely, given any finite N and any finite partitions model where priors have the same support, there is another finite partitions model with common priors that has the same nth order beliefs and knowledge for all n≤N.     

Random Expected Utility

We develop and analyze a model of random choice and random expected utility. A decision problem is a finite set of lotteries that describe the feasible choices. A random choice rule associates with each decision problem a probability measure over choices. A random utility function is a probability measure over von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions. We show that a random choice rule maximizes some random utility function if and only if it is mixture continuous, monotone (the probability that a lottery is chosen does not increase when other lotteries are added to the decision problem), extreme (lotteries that are not extreme points of the decision problem are chosen with probability 0), and linear (satisfies the independence axiom).     

On the Generic (Im)Possibility of Full Surplus Extraction in Mechanism Design

A number of studies, most notably Crémer and McLean (1985, 1988), have shown that in generic type spaces that admit a common prior and are of a fixed finite size, an uninformed seller can design mechanisms that extract all the surplus from privately informed bidders. We show that this result hinges on the nonconvexity of such a family of priors. When the ambient family of priors is convex, generic priors do not allow for full surplus extraction provided that for at least one prior in this family, players' beliefs about other players' types do not pin down the players' own preferences. In particular, full surplus extraction is generically impossible in finite type spaces with a common prior. Similarly, generic priors on the universal type space do not allow for full surplus extraction.     

Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation

This paper proposes a model of decision under ambiguity deemed vector expected utility, or VEU. In this model, an uncertain prospect, or Savage act, is assessed according to (a) a baseline expected‐utility evaluation, and (b) an adjustment that reflects the individual's perception of ambiguity and her attitudes toward it. The adjustment is itself a function of the act's exposure to distinct sources of ambiguity, as well as its variability. The key elements of the VEU model are a baseline probability and a collection of random variables, or adjustment factors, which represent acts exposed to distinct ambiguity sources and also reflect complementarities among ambiguous events. The adjustment to the baseline expected‐utility evaluation of an act is a function of the covariance of its utility profile with each adjustment factor, which reflects exposure to the corresponding ambiguity source. A behavioral characterization of the VEU model is provided. Furthermore, an updating rule for VEU preferences is proposed and characterized. The suggested updating rule facilitates the analysis of sophisticated dynamic choice with VEU preferences.     

Sign Restrictions,Structural Vector Autoregressions,and Useful Prior Information

This paper makes the following original contributions to the literature. (i) We develop a simpler analytical characterization and numerical algorithm for Bayesian inference in structural vector autoregressions (VARs) that can be used for models that are overidentified, just‐identified, or underidentified. (ii) We analyze the asymptotic properties of Bayesian inference and show that in the underidentified case, the asymptotic posterior distribution of contemporaneous coefficients in an n‐variable VAR is confined to the set of values that orthogonalize the population variance–covariance matrix of ordinary least squares residuals, with the height of the posterior proportional to the height of the prior at any point within that set. For example, in a bivariate VAR for supply and demand identified solely by sign restrictions, if the population correlation between the VAR residuals is positive, then even if one has available an infinite sample of data, any inference about the demand elasticity is coming exclusively from the prior distribution. (iii) We provide analytical characterizations of the informative prior distributions for impulse‐response functions that are implicit in the traditional sign‐restriction approach to VARs, and we note, as a special case of result (ii), that the influence of these priors does not vanish asymptotically. (iv) We illustrate how Bayesian inference with informative priors can be both a strict generalization and an unambiguous improvement over frequentist inference in just‐identified models. (v) We propose that researchers need to explicitly acknowledge and defend the role of prior beliefs in influencing structural conclusions and we illustrate how this could be done using a simple model of the U.S. labor market.     

A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity

We propose and characterize a model of preferences over acts such that the decision maker prefers act f to act g if and only if 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○f) 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○g), where 𝔼 is the expectation operator, u is a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function, φis an increasing transformation, and μis a subjective probability over the set Πof probability measures πthat the decision maker thinks are relevant given his subjective information. A key feature of our model is that it achieves a separation between ambiguity, identified as a characteristic of the decision maker's subjective beliefs, and ambiguity attitude, a characteristic of the decision maker's tastes. We show that attitudes toward pure risk are characterized by the shape of u, as usual, while attitudes toward ambiguity are characterized by the shape of φ. Ambiguity itself is defined behaviorally and is shown to be characterized by properties of the subjective set of measures Π. One advantage of this model is that the well‐developed machinery for dealing with risk attitudes can be applied as well to ambiguity attitudes. The model is also distinct from many in the literature on ambiguity in that it allows smooth, rather than kinked, indifference curves. This leads to different behavior and improved tractability, while still sharing the main features (e.g., Ellsberg's paradox). The maxmin expected utility model (e.g., Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)) with a given set of measures may be seen as a limiting case of our model with infinite ambiguity aversion. Two illustrative portfolio choice examples are offered.     

Objective and Subjective Rationality in a Multiple Prior Model

A decision maker (DM) is characterized by two binary relations. The first reflects choices that are rational in an “objective” sense: the DM can convince others that she is right in making them. The second relation models choices that are rational in a “subjective” sense: the DM cannot be convinced that she is wrong in making them. In the context of decision under uncertainty, we propose axioms that the two notions of rationality might satisfy. These axioms allow a joint representation by a single set of prior probabilities and a single utility index. It is “objectively rational” to choose f in the presence of g if and only if the expected utility of f is at least as high as that of g given each and every prior in the set. It is “subjectively rational” to choose f rather than g if and only if the minimal expected utility of f (with respect to all priors in the set) is at least as high as that of g. In other words, the objective and subjective rationality relations admit, respectively, a representation à la Bewley (2002) and à la Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989). Our results thus provide a bridge between these two classic models, as well as a novel foundation for the latter.     

Collusion in Second‐Price Auctions under Minimax Regret Criterion

Collusion in auctions, with different assumptions on distributions of bidders' private valuation, has been studied extensively over the years. With the recent development of on‐line markets, auctions are becoming an increasingly popular procurement method. The emergence of Internet marketplaces makes auction participation much easier and more convenient, since no physical presence of bidders is required. In addition, bidders in on‐line auctions can easily switch their identities. Thus, it may very well happen that the bidders in an auction have very little, if any, prior knowledge about the distributions of other bidders' valuations. We are proposing an efficient distribution of collusive profit for second‐price sealed bid auctions in such an environment. Unlike some known mechanism, which balance the budget only in expectation, our approach (which we call Random k) balances the budget ex‐post. While truth‐telling is not a dominant strategy for Random k, it is a minimax regret equilibrium.     

If You're so Smart,why Aren't You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets

This paper provides an analysis of the asymptotic properties of Pareto optimal consumption allocations in a stochastic general equilibrium model with heterogeneous consumers. In particular, we investigate the market selection hypothesis that markets favor traders with more accurate beliefs. We show that in any Pareto‐optimal allocation whether each consumer vanishes or survives is determined entirely by discount factors and beliefs. Whereas equilibrium allocations in economies with complete markets are Pareto optimal, our results characterize the limit behavior of these economies. We show that, all else equal, the market selects for consumers who use Bayesian learning with the truth in the support of their prior and selects among Bayesians according to the size of their parameter space. Finally, we show that in economies with incomplete markets, these conclusions may not hold. With incomplete markets, payoff functions can matter for long‐run survival, and the market selection hypothesis fails.     

Consistent Probabilistic Social Choice

Two fundamental axioms in social choice theory are consistency with respect to a variable electorate and consistency with respect to components of similar alternatives. In the context of traditional non‐probabilistic social choice, these axioms are incompatible with each other. We show that in the context of probabilistic social choice, these axioms uniquely characterize a function proposed by Fishburn (1984). Fishburn's function returns so‐called maximal lotteries, that is, lotteries that correspond to optimal mixed strategies in the symmetric zero‐sum game induced by the pairwise majority margins. Maximal lotteries are guaranteed to exist due to von Neumann's Minimax Theorem, are almost always unique, and can be efficiently computed using linear programming.     

Random Choice and Private Information

We consider an agent who chooses an option after receiving some private information. This information, however, is unobserved by an analyst, so from the latter's perspective, choice is probabilistic or random. We provide a theory in which information can be fully identified from random choice. In addition, the analyst can perform the following inferences even when information is unobservable: (1) directly compute ex ante valuations of menus from random choice and vice versa, (2) assess which agent has better information by using choice dispersion as a measure of informativeness, (3) determine if the agent's beliefs about information are dynamically consistent, and (4) test to see if these beliefs are well‐calibrated or rational.     

Competition and Coordination in Two‐Tier Public Service Systems under Government Fiscal Policy

As a result of government budgetary limits and rapid market growth, many public service systems—such as health care—are characterized by extensive customer wait times that have become a serious problem. This problem might be solved by allowing private firms to enter these markets, which would provide customers with a choice between a free (governmental) public service provider (SP) and a fee‐charging (or “toll”) private SP. In such a two‐tier service system, the two SPs are differentiated by service quality and cost efficiency. This study focuses on the competition and coordination issues for two‐tier service systems with customers who are sensitive to both service quality and delay. The free system attempts to maximize its expected total customer utility with limited capacity, whereas the toll system attempts to maximize its profit. Neither goal is aligned with the social welfare goal of the public service. To achieve the social welfare goal, the government plays a crucial role in coordinating the two‐tier service system via the budget, the tradeoff of social members' goals, and tax‐subsidy policies. Using a mixed duopoly game, we establish Nash equilibrium strategies and identify the conditions for the existence of the two‐tier service system. We employ several interesting and counter‐intuitive managerial insights generated by the model to show that the public service can be delivered more efficiently via customer choice and SP competition. In addition, we show that a relatively low tax‐subsidy rate can almost perfectly coordinate the two SPs to achieve most of the maximum possible benefit of the two‐tier service system.     

Genericity and Robustness of Full Surplus Extraction

We study whether priors that admit full surplus extraction (FSE) are generic, an issue that becomes a gauge to evaluate the validity of the current mechanism design paradigm. We consider the space of priors on the universal type space, and thereby relax the assumption of a fixed finite number of types made by Crémer and McLean (1988). We show that FSE priors are topologically generic, contrary to the result of Heifetz and Neeman (2006) that FSE is generically impossible, both geometrically and measure‐theoretically. Instead of using the BDP approach or convex combinations of priors adopted in Heifetz and Neeman (2006), we prove our genericity results by showing a robustness property of Crémer–McLean mechanisms.     

Ambiguity Aversion,Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences

We characterize, in the Anscombe–Aumann framework, the preferences for which there are a utility functionu on outcomes and an ambiguity indexc on the set of probabilities on the states of the world such that, for all acts f and g, . The function u represents the decision maker's risk attitudes, while the index c captures his ambiguity attitudes. These preferences include the multiple priors preferences of Gilboa and Schmeidler and the multiplier preferences of Hansen and Sargent. This provides a rigorous decision‐theoretic foundation for the latter model, which has been widely used in macroeconomics and finance.     

Ambiguity,Risk, and Asset Returns in Continuous Time

Models of utility in stochastic continuous–time settings typically assume that beliefs are represented by a probability measure, hence ruling out a priori any concern with ambiguity. This paper formulates a continuous–time intertemporal version of multiple–priors utility, where aversion to ambiguity is admissible. In a representative agent asset market setting, the model delivers restrictions on excess returns that admit interpretations reflecting a premium for risk and a separate premium for ambiguity.     

THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TRUST

We investigate the relationship between individual trust and individual economic performance. We find that individual income is hump‐shaped in a measure of intensity of trust beliefs. Our interpretation is that highly trusting individuals tend to assume too much social risk and to be cheated more often, ultimately performing less well than those with a belief close to the mean trustworthiness of the population. However, individuals with overly pessimistic beliefs avoid being cheated, but give up profitable opportunities, therefore underperforming. The cost of either too much or too little trust is comparable to the income lost by forgoing college. Our findings hold in large‐scale international survey data, as well as inside a country with high‐quality institutions, and are also supported by experimental findings. (JEL: A1, A12, D1, O15, Z1)