CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 47Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesAgricultural risk and resilience

Risk preferences and development revisited

Open access
Vieider, Ferdinand M., Martinsson, Peter, Nam, Pham Khanh, Truong, Nghi·2019·Theory and Decision
DOI 10.1007/s11238-018-9674-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We obtain rich measures of the risk preferences of a sample of Vietnamese farmers, and revisit the link between risk preferences and economic well-being. Far from being particularly risk averse, our farmers are on average risk neutral and, thus, more risk tolerant than typical Western subject populations. This generalises recent findings indicating that students in poorer countries are more risk tolerant than students in richer countries to a general population sample. Risk aversion is, furthermore, negatively correlated with income within our sample, but does not correlate with wealth. This also casts doubt on high levels of risk aversion causing failure to adopt new technologies, which we discuss.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11238-018-9674-8

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. P. (2011). The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 695-723.
  2. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter- free measurement. Management Science, 53(10), 1659-1674.
  3. Attanasio, O., Barr, A., Cardenas, J. C., Genicot, G., & Meghir, C. (2012). Risk pooling, risk preferences, and social network. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(2), 134-167.
  4. Baltussen, G., Post, T., van den Assem, M. J., & Wakker, P. P. (2012). Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 418-443.
  5. Bauer, M., Chytilová, J., & Morduch, J. (2012). Behavioral foundations of microcredit: experimental and survey evidence from rural India. The American Economic Review, 102(2), 1118-1139.
  6. Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 395-407.
  7. Booij, A. S., van Praag, B. M. S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2010). A parametric analysis of prospect theory's functionals for the general population. Theory and Decision, 68(1-2), 115-148.
  8. Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375-1412.
  9. Cardenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2013). Risk attitudes and economic well-being in Latin America. Journal of Development Economics, 103, 52-61.
  10. Choi, S., Fisman, R., Gale, D., & Kariv, S. (2007). Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1921-1938.
  11. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 1-27.
  12. Diecidue, E., & van de Ven, J. (2008). Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review, 49(2), 683-700.
  13. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk atti- tudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522-550.
  14. Donkers, B., Melenberg, B., & Van Soest, A. (2001). Estimating risk attitudes using lotteries: A large sample approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22(2), 165-95.
  15. Etchart-Vincent, N., & L'Haridon, O. (2011). Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes inclusing real losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 61-83.
  16. Feder, G. (1980). Farm size, risk aversion, and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers, 32(2), 263-282.
  17. Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(2), 255-298.
  18. Fehr-Duda, H., Bruhin, A., Epper, T. F., & Schubert, R. (2010). Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(2), 147-180.
  19. Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 567-593.
  20. Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2001). Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data-Or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38(1), 115-132.
  21. Giné, X., Townsend, R., & Vickery, J. (2008). Patterns of rainfall insurance participation in rural India. World Bank Economic Review, 22, 539-566.
  22. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109, 341-368.
  23. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291-1326.
  24. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
  25. Hopland, A. O., Matsen, E., & Strøm, B. (2016). Income and choice under risk. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 12, 55-64.
  26. Jayachandran, S. (2006). Selling labor low: Wage responses to productivity shocks in developing countries. Journal of Political Economy, 114(3), 538-575.
  27. Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining riskpreferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People's Republic ofChina. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120- 1141.
  28. Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(1), 119-131.
  29. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. The American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047-1073.
  30. L'Haridon, O., & Vieider, F. M. (2018). All over the map: A worldwide comparison of risk preferences. Quantitative Economics (in press).
  31. Liebenehm, S., & Waibel, H. (2014). Simultaneous estimation of risk and time preferences among small- scale farmers in West Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96, 1420-1438.
  32. Liu, E. M. (2012). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1386-1403.
  33. Liu, E. M., & Huang, J. K. (2013). Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. Journal of Development Economics, 103, 202-215.
  34. Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151-158.
  35. Pahlke, J., Strasser, S., & Vieider, F. M. (2012). Risk-taking for others under accountability. Economics Letters, 114(1), 102-105.
  36. Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2014). Risk preferences around the world. Management Science, 61(3), 637-648.
  37. Rosenzweig, M. R., & Binswanger, H. P. (1993). Wealth, weather risk, and the composition and profitability of agricultural investments. Economic Journal, 103(January), 56-78.
  38. Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2007). Linear cumulative prospect theory with applications to portfolio selection and insurance demand. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 30(1), 1-18.
  39. Schmidt, U., & Zank, H. (2008). Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Management Science, 54(1), 208-216.
  40. Sugden, R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 111(2), 172-191.
  41. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557-571.
  42. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncer- tainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
  44. Tversky, A., & Wakker, P. P. (1995). Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica, 63(6), 1255-1280.
  45. Vieider, F. M. (2009). The effect of accountability on loss aversion. Acta Psychologica, 132(1), 96-101.
  46. Vieider, F. M. (2012). Moderate stake variations for risk and uncertainty, gains and losses: Methodological implications for comparative studies. Economics Letters, 117, 718-721.
  47. Vieider, F. M. (2018). Certainty preference, random choice, and loss aversion: A comment on "Violence and risk preference: Experimental evidence from afghanistan". American Economic Review, 108(8), 2366-2382.
  48. Vieider, F. M., Beyene, A., Bluffstone, R. A., Dissanayake, S., Gebreegziabher, Z., Martinsson, P., et al. (2018). Measuring risk preferences in rural Ethiopia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 66(3), 417-446.
  49. Vieider, F. M., Lefebvre, M., Bouchouicha, R., Chmura, T., Hakimov, R., Krawczyk, M., et al. (2015). Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30 countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(3), 421-452.
  50. Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95-115.
  52. Yesuf, M., & Bluffstone, R. A. (2009). Poverty, risk aversion, and path dependence in low-income countries: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(4), 1022- 1037.
  53. Zeisberger, S., Vrecko, D., & Langer, T. (2012). Measuring the time stability of prospect theory preferences. Theory and Decision, 72(3), 359-386.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vieider, F. M., Martinsson, P., Nam, P. K., & Truong, N.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (VN)
  • European School of Management and Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
Vieider, Ferdinand M.
ORCID
Venue
Theory and Decision
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-10-12
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 0040-5833 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7187
DOI
10.1007/s11238-018-9674-8
OpenAlex
W2898015686
Cited by
47
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Theory and Decision (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
University of Reading
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural risk and resilience
Keywords
risk preferences, risk aversion, risk neutrality, risk tolerance, farmers, economic well-being, income, wealth, technology adoption, cross-national comparison, Vietnam

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review