The name is absent



58


Adding one risk to another

1 Introduction

A large number of studies examined background risk due to the belief that
background risk impacts the wealth and hence the welfare of the agent (see,
for example
Menoncin (2002), among others). However, the impact of back-
ground risk on the agent’s decision variable(s) was not examined by the lit-
erature. Since the agent has control over the decision variable(s) only, it is
much more useful to investigate the impact of background risk on the agent’s
decision variable(s).

The literature focused on the impact of the additive form of background
risk. Examples include
Gollier and Pratt (1996), Quiggin (2003) and Machina
(1982). On the other hand, the multiplicative background risk was largely ne-
glected. Exceptions include
Franke et al. (2003) and Pratt (1988). Studies deal-
ing with more general forms of background risk are virtually non-existent.
Even the ones that examined the additive or multiplicative form provided re-
strictive models and results. They placed restrictions on the functional form,
probability distributions, and/or the characteristics of the risk such as unde-
sirable risk. For example,
Gollier and Pratt (1996) and Franke et al. (2003)
adopted undesirable risk and restricted the functional form of utility.

Another important restriction which is imposed by the previous models is
the statistical independence assumption. That is, the background risk is inde-
pendent of the other risk(s). Moreover, background risk is normally incorpo-
rated in choice models (
Quiggin, 2003). Therefore, the impact of background
risk on production decisions is rarely investigated. In sum, all the previous
models are restrictive in multiple aspects.

This paper overcomes all the restrictions and limitations of the previous
models. First, it relaxes the independence assumption. Second, it adopts a
general functional form. Third, it adopts a general type of risk (as opposed to
undesirable risk or mean-zero risk). Fourth, it introduces a new general form
of background risk. Finally, it incorporates background risk into theory of the
firm, as opposed to choice models. In sum, this paper serves as a general
theory of modeling background risk and the impact of adding one risk to
another.

2 The model

Profit is given by π = η($ + py = c(y)) η($ + Π), where y is output, p
is price, c is the cost function, $ is a random variable representing wealth
(
Franke et al., 2003) or additive background risk, η > 0 is a multiplicative
background risk.1 The risk averse firm maximizes the expected utility of the
profit

Max Eu()
y

where u is a von Newmann-Morgestern utility function.

1Franke et al. (2003) used the restriction En 1, while Gollier and Pratt (1996) used the
restriction
E$ 0

Revista de Economia del Rosario. Vol. 14. No. 1. Enero - Junio 2011. 57-60



More intriguing information

1. Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4
2. An Interview with Thomas J. Sargent
3. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras’ Coffee Value Chain. Public and Private Influence on the Use of New Knowledge and Technology among Coffee Growers
4. Putting Globalization and Concentration in the Agri-food Sector into Context
5. Evaluating Consumer Usage of Nutritional Labeling: The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics
6. Sectoral Energy- and Labour-Productivity Convergence
7. The name is absent
8. Experimental Evidence of Risk Aversion in Consumer Markets: The Case of Beef Tenderness
9. Clinical Teaching and OSCE in Pediatrics
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. The name is absent
13. The name is absent
14. The name is absent
15. Restructuring of industrial economies in countries in transition: Experience of Ukraine
16. The name is absent
17. The name is absent
18. The name is absent
19. Return Predictability and Stock Market Crashes in a Simple Rational Expectations Model
20. Accurate, fast and stable denoising source separation algorithms