Functional Analytic Tools for Expected Utility Theory

  • Kim C. Border
Part of the Studies in Economic Theory book series (ECON.THEORY, volume 2)


Depending on the school of thought, expected utility theory states that choices among lotteries either should be made or actually made by maximizing the expected value of a real valued function of the outcomes—a utility function. This article provides a look at some of the functional analytic results used in expected utility theory. I concentrate on applications to the theory of stochastic dominance relations and the revealed preference approach to expected utility. Few of these results are deep, given the underlying tools, but many of them are not widely known, and their combination is novel. In particular, the revealed preference results of Border [4] are extended to higher degree stochastic dominance relations.


Utility Function Stochastic Dominance Expect Utility Theory Close Convex Cone Compact Hausdorff Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. D. Aliprantis and O. Burkinshaw, Principles of Real Analysis, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Amir and Z. Ziegler, Generalized convexity cones and their duals, Pacific J. Math. 27 (1968), 425–440.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. B. Atkinson, On the measurement of inequality, J. Econom. Theory 2 (1970), 224–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. C. Border, Revealed preference, stochastic dominance, and the expected utility hypothesis, forthcoming in J. Econom. Theory. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. L. Brumelle and R. G. Vickson, A unified approach to stochastic dominance, in: W. T. Ziemba and R. G. Vickson eds., Stochastic Optimization Methods in Finance (Academic Press, New York, 1975), pp. 101–113.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Choquet, Lectures on Analysis, 3 vols, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusettes, 1969.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Diestel and J. J. Uhl, Jr., Vector Measures, Mathematical Surveys, # 15, Amer. Math. Society, Rhode Island, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Dunford and J. Schwartz, Linear Operators, I, Interscience, New York, 1957.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. C. Fishburn, Decision and Value Theory, Wiley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. C. Fishburn, Convex stochastic dominance with continuous distribution functions, J. Econom. Theory 7 (1974), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. C. Fishburn, Separation theorems and expected utility, J. Econom. Theory 11 (1975), 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. C. Fishburn, Continua of stochastic dominance relations for bounded probability distributions, J. Math. Econom. 3 (1976), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. C. Fishburn, Continua of stochastic dominance relations for unbounded probability distributions, J. Math. Econom. 7 (1980), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. C. Fishburn and R. Vickson, Theoretical foundations of stochastic dominance, in: G. Whitmore and M. Findlay, eds., Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk (Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1978), pp. 39–113.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Hadar and W. Russell, Rules for ordering uncertain prospects, Amer. Econom. Rev. 59 (1969), 25–34.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Hadar and W. R. Russell, Stochastic dominance and diversification, J. Econom. Theory 3 (1971), 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Hadar and W. R. Russell, Applications in economic theory and analysis, in: G. Whitmore and M. Findlay, eds., Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk (Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1978), pp. 293–333.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Hanoch and H. Levy, Efficiency analysis of choices involving risk, Rev. Econom. Stud. 36 (1969), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya, Some simple inequalities satisfied by convex functions, Messenger of Math. 58 (1929), 145–152.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Jewitt, A note on comparative statics and stochastic dominance, J. Math. Econom. 15 (1986), 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Kamae, U. Krengel, and G. L. O’Brien, Stochastic inequalities on partially ordered spaces, Ann. Probab. 5 (1977), 899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Karlin, Total Positivity, I, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1968.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Karlin and A. Novikoff, Generalized convex inequalities, Pacific J. Math. 13 (1963), 1251–1279.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Karlin and W. Studden, Tchebycheff Systems with Applications in Analysis and Statistics, Interscience, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Karlin and Z. Ziegler, Generalized absolutely monotone functions, Israel J.Math. 3 (1965), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. K. Kwon, J. C. Fellingham, and D. P. Newman, Stochastic dominance and information value, J. Econom. Theory 20 (1979), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. L. Lehmann, Ordered families of distributions, Ann. Math. Statist. 26 (1955), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. T. Masson, Utility functions with jump discontinuities: Some evidence and implications from peasant agriculture, Econom. Inquiry 12 (1974), 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Menezes, C. Geiss, and J. Tressler, Increasing downside risk, Amer. Econom. Rev. 70 (1980), 921–932.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. A. Meyer, Probability and Potentials, Blaisdell, Waltham, Massachusetts, 1966.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. Nachbin, Linear continuous functionals positive on the increasing continuous functions, Summa Brasiliensis Math. 2 (1951), 135–150. Reprinted as Appendix 5 of Topology and Order, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1965.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Phelps, Lectures on Choquet Theory, Van Nostrand, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Quirk and R. Saposnik, Admissibility and measurable utility functions, Rev. Econom. Stud. 29 (1962), 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. Rothschild and J. Stiglitz, Increasing risk I: A definition, J. Econom. Theory 2 (1970), 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Rothschild and J. Stiglitz, Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences, J. Econom. Theory 3 (1971), 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    U. Segal, Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom, Econometrica 58 (1990), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Schmeidler, A bibliographical note on a theorem by Hardy, Littlewood and Pólya, J. Econom. Theory 20 (1979), 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    V. Strassen, The existence of probability measures with given marginals, Ann. Math. Statist. 36 (1965), 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. E. Taylor, General Theory of Functions and Integration, Blaisdell, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    G. A. Whitmore, Third-degree stochastic dominance, Amer. Econom. Rev. 60 (1970), 457–459.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. A. Whitmore, The theory of skewness preference, J. of Bus. Admin. 6 (1975), 13–20.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    G. A. Whitmore and M. Findlay, Eds., Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk, Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1978.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. V. Widder, The Laplace Transform, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1941.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Z. Ziegler, Generalized convexity cones, Pacific J. Math. 17 (1966), 561–580.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Z. Ziegler, On the characterization of measures of the cone dual to a generalized convexity cone, Pacific J. Math. 24 (1968), 603–626.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim C. Border
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of the Humanities and Social SciencesCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations