Generalized Stochastic Dominance: An Empirical Examination
- 1 December 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
- Vol. 22 (2) , 49-55
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800001796
Abstract
Use of generalized stochastic dominance (GSD) requires one to place lower and upper bounds on the risk aversion coefficient. This study showed that breakeven risk aversion coefficients found assuming the exponential utility function delineate the places where GSD preferences switch between prospects. However, between these break points, multiple, overlapping GSD intervals can be found. Consequently, when one does not have risk aversion coefficient information, discovery of breakeven coefficients instead of GSD use is recommended. The investigation also showed GSD results are insensitive to wealth and data scaling but are sensitive to rounding.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- ESTIMATING AN UPPER BOUND ON THE PRATT RISK A VERSION COEFFICIENT WHEN THE UTILITY FUNCTION IS UNKNOWN*Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1989
- Preference Among Risky Prospects Under Constant Risk AversionJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 1988
- Testing for Stochastic DominanceAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1988
- A Stochastic Dominance Comparison of Reduced Tillage Systems in Corn and Soybean Production under RiskAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1985
- An Interval Approach to Measuring Decision Maker PreferencesAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1981
- Participation in Farm Commodity Programs: A Stochastic Dominance AnalysisAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1981
- Machinery Selection Modeling: Incorporation of Weather VariabilityAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1980
- Choice among distributionsJournal of Economic Theory, 1977
- Simplifying the Choice between Uncertain Prospects Where Preference is NonlinearManagement Science, 1974
- Risk Aversion in the Small and in the LargeEconometrica, 1964