Functional Form Problems in Modeling Insurance and Gambling

  • W. Erwin Diewert


Defining the outputs of the property insurance and gambling sectors of an economy has proved to be a difficult problem for national income accountants. It is well known that the traditional expected-utility model is not consistent with economic agents fully insuring their property. Thus the present paper adapts existing non-expectedutility theories to yield useful measures of output for the property insurance and gambling sectors.

Key words

non-expected utility gambling insurance functional form problems risky activities in the national accounts state contingent commodities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ALLAIS, M. [ 1953 ]: “Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique de postulats et axiomes de l’école américains,” Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ARROW, K.J. [ 1951 ]: “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations,” Econometrica, 19, 404–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ARROW, K.J. [ 1953 ]: “Le role des valeurs boursières pour le répartition la meilleure des risques.” In Économétrie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris (41–48). Reprinted in English translation in 1964 as “The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk-Bearing,” Review of Economic Studies, 31, 91–96.Google Scholar
  4. BLACKORBY, C., DAVIDSON, R., and DONALDSON, D. [ 1977 ]: `A Homiletic Exposition of the Expected Utility Hypothesis,“ Economica, 44, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CHEW, S.H. [ 1983 ]: “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox,” Econometrica, 51, 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CHEW, S.H. [ 1989 ]: “Axiomatic Utility Theories with the Betweenness Property,” Annals of Operations Research, 19, 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CHEW, S.H., and EPSTEIN, L.G. [ 1989a ]: “A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories,” Journal of Economic Theory, 49, 207–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CHEW, S.H., and EPSTEIN, L.G. [ 1989b ]: “The Structure of Preferences and Attitudes Towards the Timing of the Resolution of Uncertainty,” International Economic Review, 30, 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CHEW, S.H., and EPSTEIN, L.G. [ 1990 ]: “Nonexpected Utility Preferences in a Temporal Framework with an Application to Consumption-Savings Behavior,” Journal of Economic Theory, 50, 54–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DEBREU, G. [ 1959 ]: Theory of Value. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  11. DEKEL, E. [ 1986 ]: “An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences Under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom,” Journal of Economic Theory, 40, 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DENNY, M. [ 1980 ]: “Measuring the Real Output of the Life Insurance Industry: A Comment,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DIEWERT, W.E. [ 1993 ]: “Symmetric Means and Choice Under Uncertainty,” in Essays in Index Number Theory (Vol. 1), W.E. Diewert and A.O. Nakamura (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (355–433).Google Scholar
  14. EPSTEIN, L.G. [ 1992 ]: “Behavior Under Risk: Recent Developments in Theory and Applications,” in Advances in Economic Theory, J.J. Laffont (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. EPSTEIN, L.G., and ZIN, S.E. [ 1989 ]: “Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: A Theoretical Framework,” Econometrica, 57, 937–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EPSTEIN, L.G., and ZIN, S.E. [ 1990 ]: “First Order Risk Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 26, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EPSTEIN, L.G., and ZIN, S.E. [ 1991a ]: “Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, 99, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EPSTEIN, L.G., and ZIN, S.E. [ 1991b ]: “The Independence Axiom and Asset Returns,” Technical Working Paper No. 109, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  19. FARMER, R.E.A. [ 1990 ]: “Rince Preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GORMAN, W.M. [ 1968 ]: “The Structure of Utility Functions,” Review of Economic Studies, 35, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. GUL, F. [ 1991 ]: “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica, 59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HIRSHHORN, R., and GEEHAN, R. [ 1977 ]: “Measuring the Real Output of the Life Insurance Industry,’ Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirshleifer, J. [ 1965 ]: “Investment Decision Under Uncertainty: Choice-Theoretic Approaches,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79, 509–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. HORNSTEIN, A., and PRESCOTT, E.C. [ 1991 ]: “Insurance Contracts as Commodities: A Note,” Review of Economics Studies, 58, 917–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. KREPS, D., and PORTEUS, E. [ 1978 ]: “Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory,” Econometrica, 46, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. KREPS, E., and PORTEUS, E. [ 1979 ]: “Temporal Von Neumann-Morgenstern and Induced Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory, 20, 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MACHINA, M. [ 1982 ]: “ `Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom:’ Econometrica, 50, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MACHINA, M. [ 1995 ]: “Non-Expected Utility and the Robustness of the Classical Insurance Paradigm,” The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 20, 9–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. RUGGLES, R. [ 1983 ]: “The United States National Income Account, 1947–1977: Their Conceptual Basis and Evolution,” in The U.S. National Income and Product Accounts: Selected Topics, M. Foss (Ed.), NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 47, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (15–96).Google Scholar
  30. SAMUELSON, P.A. [ 1952 ]: “Probability Utility and the Independence Axiom,” Econometrica, 20, 670–678. SAMUELSON, P.A. [1960]: “The St. Petersburg Paradox as a Divergent Double Limit,” International Economic Review, 1, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SEGAL, W., and SPIVAK, A. [199% “First Order versus Second Order Risk Aversion:’ Journal of Economic Theory, 51, 11–125.Google Scholar
  32. WEIL, P. [ 1990 ]: “Nonexpected Utility in Macroeconomics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 29–42. YAARI, M. [1965]: “Convexity in the Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79, 278–290.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Erwin Diewert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations