1953
DOI: 10.2307/2217133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expectation in Economics.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…keeping options open). Young (2001) replaces expected utility maximization by Shackle's (1949) approach, which pays attention to potential surprise and uncertainty-induced demand failures. Krysiak and Krysiak (2006) present an analysis of uncertainty and irreversibility by demanding that an allocation is envy-free, leading to an interpretation of sustainability as an intertemporal distribution in which no future generation prefers to live at an earlier point in history.…”
Section: Inspiration From Existing Economic and Evolutionary Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…keeping options open). Young (2001) replaces expected utility maximization by Shackle's (1949) approach, which pays attention to potential surprise and uncertainty-induced demand failures. Krysiak and Krysiak (2006) present an analysis of uncertainty and irreversibility by demanding that an allocation is envy-free, leading to an interpretation of sustainability as an intertemporal distribution in which no future generation prefers to live at an earlier point in history.…”
Section: Inspiration From Existing Economic and Evolutionary Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The credit crunch of 2007-2008 provides the most spectacular recent examples, but Shackle (1949) was drawing attention to the inevitability of such surprising events in macroeconomics and finance long before. One cannot evade their implications for rational decision theory by saying that experts should bring more computing power to bear.…”
Section: Bayes' Rulementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, it introduces a priority weight by jointly evaluating each known outcome of a performance measure for computing project impacts and its degree of surprise pair. Finally, it identifies and standardizes the focus gain and focus loss values relative to an expected outcome from maximum priority weights (Ford and Ghose, 1998;Shackle, 1949;Young, 2001). …”
Section: Uncertainty Considerations In Asset Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%