2016
DOI: 10.1086/683684
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spaces for Agreement: A Theory of Time-Stochastic Dominance and an Application to Climate Change

Abstract: Many investments involve both a long time horizon and risky returns. Making investment decisions thus requires assumptions about time and risk preferences. Such assumptions are frequently contested, particularly in the public sector, and there is no immediate prospect of universal agreement. Motivated by these observations, we develop a theory and method of finding "spaces for agreement." These are combinations of classes of discount and utility function, for which one investment dominates another (or "almost"… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(38 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to conduct our welfare analysis we adopt the approach pioneered by Dietz and Matei (2016). More specifically, the authors extended the stochastic and almost stochastic dominance methods of preference ranking within a dynamic framework.…”
Section: Welfare Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In order to conduct our welfare analysis we adopt the approach pioneered by Dietz and Matei (2016). More specifically, the authors extended the stochastic and almost stochastic dominance methods of preference ranking within a dynamic framework.…”
Section: Welfare Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More specifically, the authors extended the stochastic and almost stochastic dominance methods of preference ranking within a dynamic framework. Here we simply outline the application of this approach within our hurricane damage context, and refer the reader for full details and proofs to Dietz and Matei (2016).…”
Section: Welfare Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations