On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making



While the state s entering the loss function (1) may be interpreted literally
as a state of nature, it is more interesting to interpret
s as indexing probability
distributions over random events. The latter implies that each
s is associated
with a di
fferent economic model about the underlying stochastic process, which
is an interpretation more in line with the recent literature on robust control in
macroeconomics.

First, consider a Bayesian decision maker. Based on Savage’s axioms such a
decision maker can construct subjective prior probabilities
pi (г = 1,... n) that
describe the likelihood with which the decision maker believes that state
swill
realize.

Given these priors a Bayesian acts to

I

min E [L(x, s)] = min L(x, Si)pi                  (2)

.rΩ^                   xΩx <

i=l

Next, consider what has been called a robust decision maker who cannot
assign meaningful priors to the realization of the state
s. The inability to assign
prior probabilities might be due to a failure of some of Savage’s axioms, e.g.
if there is no random variable with uniform distribution that allows for the
calibration of probabilities.

Uncertainty that cannot be quantified in terms of subjective probabilities has
been called Knightian uncertainty in the literature. The existence of Knightian
uncertainty opens many possible ways for modeling the decision problem. One
intuitive way, suggested by Blinder (1998), is to simply average over the states
of the world. The resulting decision problem would be equivalent to a Bayesian
decision problem with
pi = (г = 1,... ,1 ).

The most widely advocated method to model decisions in the presence of
Knightian uncertainty is to let the decision maker choose the action
x that
minimizes the maximum possible loss associated with
x. In mathematical terms

min max L(x,s)                           (3)

xΩx sΩs

Let x* denote the solution to the minimization part of problem (3). An ax-
iomatic formulation for such a decision theory has been given by Gilboa and
Schmeidler (1989).



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Heterogeneity of Investors and Asset Pricing in a Risk-Value World
3. Delayed Manifestation of T ransurethral Syndrome as a Complication of T ransurethral Prostatic Resection
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Biological Control of Giant Reed (Arundo donax): Economic Aspects
7. The name is absent
8. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO
9. Globalization, Divergence and Stagnation
10. Non-farm businesses local economic integration level: the case of six Portuguese small and medium-sized Markettowns• - a sector approach
11. Output Effects of Agri-environmental Programs of the EU
12. The name is absent
13. Detecting Multiple Breaks in Financial Market Volatility Dynamics
14. Three Policies to Improve Productivity Growth in Canada
15. The resources and strategies that 10-11 year old boys use to construct masculinities in the school setting
16. Modeling industrial location decisions in U.S. counties
17. EU Preferential Partners in Search of New Policy Strategies for Agriculture: The Case of Citrus Sector in Trinidad and Tobago
18. Emissions Trading, Electricity Industry Restructuring and Investment in Pollution Abatement
19. Regional specialisation in a transition country - Hungary
20. Chebyshev polynomial approximation to approximate partial differential equations