Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:01:00.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natural capital investment under knightian uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2014

Takao Asano  and
Akihisa Shibata
Takao Asano
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics, Okayama University, 3-1-1 Tsushimanaka, Kita-ku, Okayama 700-8530, Japan. E-mail: asano@e.okayama-u.ac.jp.
Akihisa Shibata
Affiliation:
Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Japan. E-mail: shibata@kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a simple two-period model of natural capital investment under Knightian uncertainty and analyze the effects of changes in the degree of ambiguity on the optimal natural capital investment. We find that the degree of Knightian uncertainty affects a government's natural capital investment. Moreover, we find that the direction of the effect of the Knightian uncertainty depends on the nature of uncertainty, that is, on whether the uncertainty is about the future level of natural capital or about the return from saving.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 529 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K.J. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing, Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnsonin Saatio.Google Scholar
Asano, T. (2010), ‘Precautionary principle and the optimal timing of environmental policy under ambiguity’, Environmental and Resource Economics 47: 173–196.Google Scholar
Athanassoglou, S. and Xepapadeas, A. (2012), ‘Pollution control with uncertain stock dynamics: when, and how, to be precautious’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63: 304–320.Google Scholar
Brock, A.W. and Xepapadeas, A. (2003), ‘Regulating non linear environmental systems under Knightian uncertainty’, in Arnott, R., Greenwald, B., Kanbur, R. and Nalebuff, B. (eds), Economics for an Imperfect World: Essays in Honor of Joseph E. Stiglitz, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cao, H.H., Wang, T., and Zhang, H.H. (2005), ‘Model uncertainty, limited market participation, and asset prices’, Review of Financial Studies 18: 1219–1251.Google Scholar
Chiesura, A. and De Groot, R. (2003), ‘Critical natural capital: a socio–cultural perspective’, Ecological Economics 44: 219–231.Google Scholar
De Groot, R., der Perk, J.V., Chiesura, A., and van Vliet, A. (2003), ‘Importance and treat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital’, Ecological Economics 44: 187–204.Google Scholar
Dow, J. and Werlang, S.R.C. (1992), ‘Uncertainty aversion, risk aversion, and the optimal choice of portfolio’, Econometrica 60: 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easley, D. and O'Hara, M. (2009), ‘Ambiguity and nonparticipation: the role of regulation’, Review of Financial Studies 22: 1817–1843.Google Scholar
Ekins, P. (1992), ‘A four–capital model of wealth creation’, in Ekins, P. and Max-Neef, M. (eds), Real–Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., and De Groot, R. (2003), ‘A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability’, Ecological Economics 44: 165–185.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. (1961), ‘Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, L.G. and Wang, T. (1994), ‘Intertemporal asset pricing under Knightian uncertainty’, Econometrica 62: 283–322.Google Scholar
Etner, J., Jeleva, M., and Tallon, J.-M. (2010), ‘Decision theory under ambiguity’, Journal of Economic Surveys 26: 234–270.Google Scholar
Funke, M. and Paetz, M. (2011), ‘Environmental policy under model uncertainty: a robust optimal control approach’, Climatic Change 107: 225–239.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1989), ‘Maxmin expected utility with non–unique priors’, Journal of Mathematical Economics 18: 141–153.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, F. (2008), ‘Precautionary principle and robustness for a stock pollutant with multiplicative risk’, Environmental and Resource Economics 41: 25–46.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.P. and Sargent, T.J. (2001), ‘Robust control and model uncertainty’, American Economic Review 91: 60–66.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.P. and Sargent, T.J. (2002), ‘Robustness and uncertainty aversion’, Working paper, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.P. and Sargent, T.J. (2008), Robustness, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heal, G. and Millner, A. (2013), ‘Uncertainty and decision in climate economics’, working paper, Grantham Research Institute.Google Scholar
Hoel, M. and Karp, L. (2001), ‘Taxes versus quotas for a stock pollutant with multiplicative uncertainty’, Journal of Public Economics 82: 91–114.Google Scholar
Ingersoll, J. (1987), Theory of Financial Decision Making, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2005), ‘A smooth model of decision making under uncertainty’, Econometrica 73: 1849–1892.Google Scholar
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2009), ‘Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences’, Journal of Economic Theory 144: 930–976.Google Scholar
Knight, F. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kogan, L. and Wang, T. (2002), ‘A simple theory of asset pricing under model uncertainty’, Working paper, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lange, A. (2003), ‘Climate change and the irreversibility effect–combining expected utility and maxmin’, Environmental and Resource Economics 25: 417–434.Google Scholar
Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Rustichini, A. (2006), ‘Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences’, Econometrica 74: 1447–1498.Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., and Green, J.R. (1995), Microeconomic Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miao, J. (2004), ‘A note on consumption and savings under Knightian uncertainty’, Annals of Economics and Finance 5: 299–311.Google Scholar
Millner, A., Dietz, S., and Heal, G. (2013), ‘Scientific ambiguity and climate policy’, Environmental and Resource Economics 55: 21–46.Google Scholar
Mori, M., Katsukawa, T., and Matsuda, H. (2001), ‘Recovery plan for an exploited species, Southern Bluefin Tuna’, Population Ecology 43: 125–132.Google Scholar
Nishimura, K.G. and Ozaki, H. (2004), ‘Search and Knightian uncertainty’, Journal of Economic Theory 119: 299–333.Google Scholar
Schmeidler, D. (1989), ‘Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity’, Econometrica 57: 571–587.Google Scholar
Tajibaeva, L.S. (2012), ‘Property rights, renewable resources and economic development’, Environmental and Resource Economics 51: 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treich, N. (2010), ‘The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59: 15–26.Google Scholar
Vardas, G. and Xepapadeas, A. (2010), ‘Model uncertainty, ambiguity and the precautionary principle: implications for biodiversity management’, Environmental and Resource Economics 45: 379–404.Google Scholar
Wakker, P.P. (2010), Prospect Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, R.T. and Bishop, R.C. (1997), ‘How to decide when experts disagree: uncertainty–based choice rules in environmental policy’, Land Economics 73: 492–507.Google Scholar
Xepapadeas, A. (2012), ‘The cost of ambiguity and robustness in international pollution control’, in Hahn, R. and Ulph, A. (eds), Climate Change and Common Sense, Essays in Honour of Tom Schelling, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar