Abstract
By means of minimal assumptions on the individual preferences, I show that the Willingness To Pay (WTP) for both a FSD and SSD reduction of risk is the sum of a mean effect, a pure risk effect and a wealth effect. As a result, the WTP of a risk-averse decision maker may be lower than the WTP of a risk-neutral one, for a large class of individual preferences’ representation and a large class of risks.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
M. Cohen (1995) ArticleTitleRisk aversion concepts in expected and non-expected utility models Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 20 73–91
L. Eeckhoudt P. Godfroid C. Gollier (1997) ArticleTitleWillingness to pay, the risk premium and risk aversion Economics Letters 55 355–360 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00094-3
I. Jewitt (1984) ArticleTitleRisk aversion and the choice between risky prospects: the preservation of comparative statics results Review of Economic Studies 54 73–85
I. Jewitt (1987) ArticleTitleChoosing between risky prospects: the characterization of comparative statics results, and location independent risk Management Science 35 60–70
M. Landsberger I. Meilijson (1994) ArticleTitleThe generating process and an extension of Jewitt’s location independent ris concept Management Science 40 662–669 Occurrence Handle10.1287/mnsc.40.5.662
A. Roëll (1987) ArticleTitleRisk aversion in Quiggin and Yarri’s rank-order model of choice under uncertainty The Economic Journal 97 143–159
S. Ross (1981) ArticleTitleSome stronger measures of risk aversion in the small and the large with applications Econometrica 49 621–638
H. Schlesinger E. Venezian (1986) ArticleTitleInsurance markets with loss-prevention activity: Profits, market structure and consumer welfare Rand Journal of Economics 17 227–238
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Langlais, E. Willingness to Pay for Risk Reduction and Risk Aversion without the Expected Utility Assumption. Theor Decis 59, 43–50 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-7303-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-7303-9