Appendix A: Proof of Lemma 1
First, we consider an increase in Wq to ∣>Wi, holding the required expected
return R* constant; b > 1. Then η changes to aη; a> 0. Define eɪ := (e — e)
for the initial endowment Wq and define eb := (e—e) for the initial endowment
bW^o. Then we need to show that
E[f(e1)] > E[f(eb)]
— —aη
or
aE[f(e1)] >E[f(eb)]. (22)
From equation (15) it follows that V ε,
— E[f (eb)] + f (ebS') = aη θε = a( — E[f (ei)] + f (ele))- (23)
As the mean absolute deviation between payoffs across states has to grow
with Wq , the monotonicity of f implies that also the mean absolute deviation
I E[f (e)] — f (e)] I has to grow. Hence a > 1. Now assume, by contradiction,
that inequality (22) is not true. Then equation (23) implies
f (ebε) ≥ af (elεy, V ε. (24)
As a > 1 and f > 0, this implies
f (ebε) > f (elεy, V ε.
36
More intriguing information
1. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras’ Coffee Value Chain. Public and Private Influence on the Use of New Knowledge and Technology among Coffee Growers
6. A Principal Components Approach to Cross-Section Dependence in Panels
7. Program Semantics and Classical Logic
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Keystone sector methodology:network analysis comparative study