Beklenen Fayda Kuramı ve Genelleştirilmiş Alternatifleri

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 81 - 103, 30.12.2024

Melikşah Utku

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, beklenen fayda kuramının temel aksiyomları ve bu aksiyomların gevşetilmesiyle genelleştirilen farklı beklenen fayda modelleri ele alınmıştır. Beklenen fayda kuramı, büyük ölçüde optimizasyona dayalı iktisadi karar alma sürecinin matematik üzerinden analizine zemin teşkil etmek üzere kurgulanmış, ancak zaman içinde ana akım iktisat öğretisinin vazgeçilmez unsurlarından biri olmuştur. Bununla birlikte ampirik çalışma ve deneyler kuramın aksiyomları ile uyumsuz gözlemlere işaret etmiş ve bu durum beklenen fayda kuramına yönelik ciddi eleştirilerin oluşmasına sebep olmuştur. Bu çerçevede eleştiriye maruz kalan aksiyomların gevşetildiği ve buna rağmen beklenen fayda kuramının ana iskeletinin korunduğu çok sayıda model geliştirilmiştir. Söz konusu çalışmalar, gevşetilen aksiyomlar bazında tasnif edilmiş ve birbirleriyle ilişkileri değerlendirilmiştir. Bu genelleştirilmiş modeller, daha gerçekçi şartlar altında dahi olsa beklenen fayda kuramının çıkarımlarının belli ölçüde geçerliliğini koruyabildiğini göstermiştir. Neticede bu modellerin beklenen fayda kuramına yönelik eleştirileri belli ölçüde savuşturduğu ve beklenen fayda kuramının ana akım iktisadın temel öğesi olarak hayatiyetini devam ettirebilmesine imkân sağladığı görülmüştür.

Keywords

Beklenen Fayda Kuramı, Geçişlilik Aksiyomu, Süreklilik Aksiyomu, Bağımsızlık Aksiyomu, Alternatif Karar Modelleri

Expected Utility Theorem and Its Generalized Versions

Abstract

In this study, the fundamental axioms of expected utility theory and various generalized expected utility models developed through the relaxation of these axioms are examined. Expected utility theory was originally formulated to lay the groundwork for analyzing economic decision-making processes through mathematics, largely based on optimization. However, it has become an indispensable element of mainstream economic doctrine over time. Nonetheless, empirical studies and experiments have indicated observations that are inconsistent with the theory's axioms, leading to significant criticisms of expected utility theory. In this context, numerous models have been developed that relax the criticized axioms while still preserving the core framework of expected utility theory. These studies have been classified based on the relaxed axioms and their interrelations have been evaluated. These generalized models have demonstrated that, even under more realistic conditions, the implications of expected utility theory can retain a certain degree of validity. Consequently, these models have to some extent mitigated criticisms of expected utility theory and enabled its continued vitality as a fundamental element of mainstream economics.

Keywords

Expected Utility Theory, Transitivity Axiom, Continuity Axiom, Independence Axiom, Alternative Decision Models

References

• Akerlof, G. A. (1982). Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543–569.
• Allais, M. (1979). Foreword; M. Allais ve O. Hagen (Editörler), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (3–11). Springer-Science+Business Media B.V.
• Allais, M. (2018). Allais Paradox; The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2. Basım: 248–253). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5
• Alon, S. ve Gayer, G. (2016). Utilitarian Preferences with Multiple Priors. Econometrica, 84(3), 1181–1201.
• Alon, S. ve Schmeidler, D. (2014). Purely Subjective Maxmin Expected Utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 152, 382–412.
• Aumann, R. J. (1962). Utility Theory without the Completeness Axiom. Econometrica, 30(3), 445–462.
• Becker, G. S. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493–517.
• Becker, J. L. ve Sarin, R. K. (1987). Lottery Dependent Utility. Management Science, 33(11), 1367–1382.
• Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981.
• Blume, L. E. ve Easley, D. (2018). Rationality; The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2. Basım: 11275–11288). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5
• Buchak, L. (2013). Risk and Rationality. Oxford University Press.
• Camerer, C. F. (1989). An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 61–104.
• Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D. ve Ortoleva, P. (2015). Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect. Econometrica, 83(2), 693–728.
• Chew, S. H. (1985). An Axiomatization of the Rank Dependent Quasilinear Mean Generalizing the Gini Mean and the Quasilinear Mean (Working Papers in Economics 156). John Hopkins University, Department of Political Economy.
• Chew, S. H. ve MacCrimmon, K. R. (1979). Alpha-nu Choice Theory: An Generalization of Expected Utility Theory (Working Paper 669). University of British Columbia Faculty of Commerce and Administration.
• Chipman, J. S. (1960). The Foundations of Utility. Econometrica, 28(2), 193–224.
• Chu, F. C. ve Halpern, J. Y. (2008). Great Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility. Theory and Decision, 64, 1–36.
• Dietrich, F., Staras, A. ve Sugden, R. (2021). Savage’s Response to Allais as Broomean Reasoning. Journal of Economic Methodology, 28(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1857424
• Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons.
• Fishburn, P. C. (1974). Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey. Management Science, 20(11), 1442–1471.
• Fishburn, P. C. (1988). Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Fishburn, P. C. (1989). Generalizations of Expected Utility Theories: A Survey of Recent Proposals. Annals of Operations Research, 19, 3–28.
• Friedman, M. (1970). A Theory of the Consumption Function. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. http://www.nber.org/books/frie57-1
• Friedman, M. ve Savage, L. J. (1948). The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk. The Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279–304.
• Gilboa, I. ve Schmeidler, D. (1986). Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior (Working Paper 16–86). Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
• Gül, F. ve Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Expected Uncertain Utility Theory. Econometrica, 82(1), 1–39.
• Hagen, O. (1979a). Introductory Survey. In M. Allais ve O. Hagen (Ed), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (13–24). Springer-Science+Business Media B.V.
• Hagen, O. (1979b). Towards a Positive Theory of Preferences under Risk; M. Allais ve O. Hagen (Editörler), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (271–302). Springer- Science+Business Media B.V.
• Hara, K., Ok, E. A. ve Riella, G. (2019). Coalitional Expected Multi-Utility Theory. Econometrica, 87(3), 933–980.
• Harless, D. W. ve Camerer, C. F. (1994). The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251–1289.
• Hausner, M. (1953). Multidimensional Utilities. Rand Corporation. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0604151.pdf
• Hey, J. D. (1984). The Economics of Optimism and Pessimism: A Definition and Some Applications. Kyklos, 37(2), 181–205.
• Hey, J. D. ve Orme, C. (1994). Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326.
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. ve Tversky, A. (Editörler). (2008). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (24. Basım). Cambridge University Press.
• Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
• Kannai, Y. (1963). Existence of a Utility in Infinite Dimensional Partially Ordered Spaces. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 1, 229–234.
• Karni, E. ve Safra, Z. (1990). Rank-Dependent Probabilities. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 487–495.
• Koopmans, T. C. (1960). Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience. Econometrica, 28(2), 287–309.
• Kydland, F. E. ve Prescott, E. C. (1982). Time to Build and Aggregate Fluctuations. Econometrica, 50(6), 1345–1370.
• Loomes, G. ve Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.
• Loomes, G. ve Sugden, R. (1983). Regret Theory and Measurable Utility. Economics Letters, 12(1), 19–21. Loomes, G. ve Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty. The Review of Economic Studies, 53(2), 271–282.
• Machina, M. J. (1982). “Expected Utility” Analysis without the Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 50(2), 277–323.
• Malinvaud, E. (1952). Note on von Neumann-Morgenstern’s Strong Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 20(4), 679.
• Manne, A. S. (1952). The Strong Independence Assumption-Gasoline Blends and Probability Mixtures. Econometrica, 20(4), 665–668.
• Marschak, J. (1950). Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility. Econometrica, 18(2), 111–141.
• May, K. O. (1954). Intransivity, Utility, and the Aggregation of Preferenc Patterns. Econometrica, 22(1), 1–13.
• Modigliani, F. ve Brumberg, R. (1955). Utility Analysis and the Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Section Data; K. K. Kurihara (Editörler), Post-Keynesian Economics (388–436). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
• Navarro-Martinez, D., Loomes, G., Isoni, A., Butler, D. ve Alaoui, L. (2018). Boundedly Rational Expected Utility Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57(3), 199–223.
• Pivato, M. (2020). Subjective Expected Utility with a Spectral State Space. Economic Theory, 69(2), 249–313.
• Quiggin, J. (1982). A Theory of Anticipated Utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323–343.
• Quiggin, J. (1985). Subjective Utility, Anticipated Utility, and the Allais Paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 94–101.
• Samuelson, P. A. (1952). Probability, Utility, and the Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 20(4), 670–678.
• Savage, L. J. (1972). The Foundations of Statistics (1954 Baskısının Gözden Geçirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş Baskısı). Dover Publications.
• Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529–563.
• Segal, U. (1984). Nonlinear Decision Weights with the Independence Axiom (Working Paper 353). University of California, Department of Economics.
• Segal, U. (1988). Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom? The American Economic Review, 78(1), 233–236.
• Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332–382.
• Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31–48.
• Vergopoulos, V. (2011). Dynamic Consistency for Non-Expected Utility Preferences. Economic Theory, 48(2/3), 493–518.
• von Neumann, J. ve Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior: Sixtieth-Anniversary Edition (Kindle for iOS). Princeton University Press.
• Webb, C. S. (2015). Piecewise Additivity for Non-Expected Utility. Economic Theory, 60(2), 371–392.
• Wikipedia Contributors. (2024, March 30). Pathological (Mathematics). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathological_(mathematics)&oldid=1216394662
• Wold, H. (1952). Ordinal Preferences or Cardinal Utility? Econometrica, 20(4), 661–663.
• Yaari, M. E. (1987). The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95–115.