Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
SSRN
Working paper
In: American political science review, Band 84, Heft 2, S. 439-460
ISSN: 1537-5943
We examine the "progressivity" of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's theory of conflict as originally developed inThe War Trapand as extended later. Bueno de Mesquita offers the progressivity of the expected utility theory relative to other theories and approaches to conflict as his major defense in responding to critics. Bueno de Mesquita essentially relies on Imre Lakatos' definition oftheoretical progressin presenting his argument. A review of the literature addressing the concept of theoretical progress indicates that Bueno de Mesquita's application of Lakatosian criteria is incomplete and that Lakatos' criteria are themselves flawed. We review the philosophy of science literature dealing with theoretical progress or rational criteria for theory choice and evaluate the progressivity of the expected utility theory of conflict in light of criteria other than Lakatos'. While we do recommend further elaboration of Bueno de Mesquita's theory, we do not find it more progressive than its rivals.
In: American political science review, Band 84, Heft 2, S. 439
ISSN: 0003-0554
SSRN
Working paper
In: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Band 92, Heft 1, S. 16-27
SSRN
In: Oxford Agrarian Studies, Band 10, Heft 1, S. 240-254
In: Journal of political economy, Band 57, Heft 2, S. 182-182
ISSN: 1537-534X
In: Journal of political economy, Band 80, Heft 5, S. 1056-1059
ISSN: 1537-534X
In: Social science quarterly, Band 58, Heft 2, S. 332-335
ISSN: 0038-4941
Discussed are two major errors found in a utility theory analysis of criminal behavior by R. Stover & D. Brown ("Understanding Compliance and Noncompliance with Law: The Contributions of Utility Theory," Social Science Quarterly, 1975, 56, Dec, 363-375). As a result of misusing opportunity cost, the lawful wage rate was not included in their utility theory as a determining factor in criminal behavior. The study further errs in not considering attitudes toward risk of punishment. In Reply to Palmer and Bartlett, Robert V. Stover & Don W. Brown (U of Colorado, Boulder & U of California, Riverside) explain that their utility model extends beyond the conventions & vocabulary of traditional utility theory used by economists, & that this model can easily accommodate risk attitudes & other variables. The aim was to demonstrate the possibilities of utility theory in the study of legal compliance by presenting a general model. A. Rubins.
SSRN
Working paper
In: CESifo Working Paper Series No. 7014, April 2018
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Band 64, Heft 1, S. 171-192
Using actual probabilities of audit and penalty rates, the return on evasion is 91–98%. So why do not most of us evade? Existing analysis, based on expected utility theory (EUT) is unable to explain this. Furthermore, and contrary to intuition and the bulk of evidence, EUT predicts that evasion should be decreasing in the tax rate (Yitzhaki puzzle). We apply Tversky and Kahneman's [Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323] cumulative prospect theory to tax evasion. We show that prospect theory provides a much more satisfactory account of tax evasion including an explanation of the Yitzhaki puzzle. This also provides independent confirmation of prospect theory.
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 35, Heft 8, S. 1437-1447
ISSN: 1539-6924
Recent studies indicate that absence of the consideration of risk attitudes of decisionmakers in the risk matrix establishment process has become a major limitation. In order to evaluate risk in a more comprehensive manner, an approach to establish risk matrices that integrates risk attitudes based on utility theory is proposed. There are three main steps within this approach: (1) describing risk attitudes of decisionmakers by utility functions, (2) bridging the gap between utility functions and the risk matrix by utility indifference curves, and (3) discretizing utility indifference curves. A complete risk matrix establishment process based on practical investigations is introduced. This process utilizes decisionmakers' answers to questionnaires to formulate required boundary values for risk matrix establishment and utility functions that effectively quantify their respective risk attitudes.