Shackle’s analysis of choice under uncertainty: its strengths, weaknesses and potential synergies with rival approaches

IF 0.6 3区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS
Peter E. Earl
{"title":"Shackle’s analysis of choice under uncertainty: its strengths, weaknesses and potential synergies with rival approaches","authors":"Peter E. Earl","doi":"10.1080/01603477.2023.2222705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper offers a constructively critical examination of George Shackle’s theory of expectations and decision-making under uncertainty, a theory that Shackle developed because he questioned the relevance of objective probabilities as foundations for expectations. His theory is cast in terms of degrees of possibility and potential for surprise associated with disbelief that comes from imagining things that could prevent outcomes from eventuating. His idea that there may be ranges of mutually exclusive “perfectly possible” events has posed a problem for blending his thinking with the subjective probability approach, but here it is argued that this idea is flawed. Shackle’s theory of how expectations are deployed in making choices involves a reference-dependent theory of attention that results in focus on best-case and worst-case pairs of outcomes for each scheme. The paper identifies potential synergies with this idea and prospect theory and explores emotion- and satisficing-based perspectives as well as Shackle’s formal analysis of how focus outcomes are used in ranking rival schemes of action.","PeriodicalId":47197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2023.2222705","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This paper offers a constructively critical examination of George Shackle’s theory of expectations and decision-making under uncertainty, a theory that Shackle developed because he questioned the relevance of objective probabilities as foundations for expectations. His theory is cast in terms of degrees of possibility and potential for surprise associated with disbelief that comes from imagining things that could prevent outcomes from eventuating. His idea that there may be ranges of mutually exclusive “perfectly possible” events has posed a problem for blending his thinking with the subjective probability approach, but here it is argued that this idea is flawed. Shackle’s theory of how expectations are deployed in making choices involves a reference-dependent theory of attention that results in focus on best-case and worst-case pairs of outcomes for each scheme. The paper identifies potential synergies with this idea and prospect theory and explores emotion- and satisficing-based perspectives as well as Shackle’s formal analysis of how focus outcomes are used in ranking rival schemes of action.
Shackle对不确定性下选择的分析:其优势、劣势以及与竞争对手方法的潜在协同作用
摘要本文对乔治·沙克尔关于不确定性下的期望与决策的理论进行了建设性的批判性考察,沙克尔之所以提出这一理论,是因为他质疑客观概率作为期望基础的相关性。他的理论是根据可能性的程度和与怀疑有关的潜在惊喜,这种怀疑来自于想象可能阻止结果最终发生的事情。他认为,可能存在一系列相互排斥的“完全可能”事件,这给他的想法与主观概率方法的融合带来了问题,但在这里,有人认为这种想法是有缺陷的。沙克尔关于期望如何在选择中发挥作用的理论涉及到一个依赖于参考的注意理论,该理论导致人们关注每种方案的最佳情况和最坏情况对结果。本文确定了这一观点和前景理论的潜在协同作用,并探索了基于情感和满足的观点,以及沙克尔关于焦点结果如何用于对竞争行动方案进行排名的正式分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics is a scholarly journal of innovative theoretical and empirical work that sheds fresh light on contemporary economic problems. It is committed to the principle that cumulative development of economic theory is only possible when the theory is continuously subjected to scrutiny in terms of its ability both to explain the real world and to provide a reliable guide to public policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信