Skip to main content
Log in

Valuing future cash flows with non separable discount factors and non additive subjective measures: conditional Choquet capacities on time and on uncertainty

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider future cash flows that are contingent both on dates in time and on uncertain states. The decision maker (DM) values the cash flows according to its decision criterion: Here, the payoffs’ expectation with respect to a capacity measure. The subjective measure grasps the DM’s behaviour in front of the future, in the spirit of de Finetti’s (1930) and of Yaari’s (1987) Dual Theory in the case of risk. Decomposition of the criterion into two criteria that represent the DM’s preferences on uncertain payoffs and time contingent payoffs are derived from Ghirardato’s (1997) results. Conditional Choquet integrals are defined by dynamic consistency (DC) requirements and conditional capacities are derived, under some conditions on information. In contrast with other models referring to DC, ours does not collapse into a linear one because it violates a weak version of consequentialism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Chateauneuf A. (1991) On the use of capacities in modelling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion. Journal of Mathematical Economics 20: 349–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chateauneuf A., Kast R., Lapied A. (2001) Conditioning capacities and Choquet integrals: The role of comonotony. Theory and Decision 51: 367–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chateauneuf A., Rébillé Y. (2004) Some characterizations of non-additive multi-period models. Mathematical Social Sciences 48: 235–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti B. (1930) Fondamenti logici del raggionamento probabilistico. Bolletino dell’unione matematica italiana 9: 258–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster A. (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by multivariated mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38: 325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denneberg D. (1994) Conditioning (updating) non additive measures. Annals of Operations Research 52: 21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diecidue E., Wakker P. (2002) Dutch Books: Avoiding strategic and dynamic complications and a comonotonic extension. Mathematical Social Sciences 43: 135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, R., & Halpern, J. Y. (1990). A new approach to updating beliefs. Proceedings of 6th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 347–374.

  • Ghirardato P. (1997) On independence for non-additive measures with a Fubini theorem. Journal of Economic Theory 73: 261–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardato P. (2002) Revisiting savage in a conditional world. Economic Theory 20: 83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa I. (1989) Expectations and variations in multi-period decisions. Econometrica 57: 1153–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. (1993) Updating ambiguous beliefs. Journal of Econonomic Theory 59: 33–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond P. (1989) Consistent plans, consequentialism, and expected utility. Econometrica 57: 1445–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffray J.-Y. (1992) Bayesian updating and belief functions. IEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 22: 1144–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karni E., Schmeidler D. (1991) Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Theory 54: 401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kast, R., Lapied, A. (2007). Dynamically consistent Choquet capacities. ICER WP: Torino.

  • Kast, R., Lapied, A. & Toqueboeuf, P. (2007). Updating Choquet integrals, consequentialism and dynamic consistency. DT, Greqam.

  • Koopmans, T. (1972). Representation of preference orderings over time. In C. Mac Guire, R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organization (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapied, A., & Toqueoeuf, P. (2007). Consistent dynamic choice and non expected utility preferences. DT, Greqam.

  • Machina M. (1998) Dynamic consistency and non expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature 22: 1622–1668

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, K., & Ozaki, H. (2003). A simple axiomatization of iterated Choquet objectives. W. P. CIRJE, Tokyo University.

  • Sarin R., Wakker P. (1998) Dynamic choice and non expected utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17: 87–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler D. (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57: 571–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer W. (1967) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaari M. (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55: 95–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Kast.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kast, R., Lapied, A. Valuing future cash flows with non separable discount factors and non additive subjective measures: conditional Choquet capacities on time and on uncertainty. Theory Decis 69, 27–53 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-008-9107-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-008-9107-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation