Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-nfgnx Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-21T09:57:58.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospect theory and the potential for lottery-based subsidies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2020

NOAH SPENCER Open the ORCID record for NOAH SPENCER [Opens in a new window]
NOAH SPENCER*
Affiliation:
Competition Bureau of Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
*
*Correspondence to: Competition Bureau of Canada, 50 Rue Victoria, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada. E-mail: noahhenryspencer@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relevant literature notes a lack of applications relative to the theoretical impact of prospect theory. In this paper, I provide a brief review of this literature aimed at policymakers before developing an idea for lottery-based government subsidy policies. I consider the general conditions under which such policies could be effective in (1) increasing the performance of desired behaviours and (2) saving governments money. I provide two examples of current Canadian subsidies that I argue could be improved with the addition of a lottery option.

Information

Type
New Voices
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 500 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdellaoui, M. (2000), ‘Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions’, Management Science, 46(11): 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, M. (1953), ‘Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risqué: critique des postulats et axioms de l'ecole americaine’, Econometrica, 21(4): 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, N. (2013), ‘Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battalio, R., et al. (1990), ‘Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: some initial results’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, M. (2008), ‘New paradoxes of risky decision making’, Psychological Review, 115(2): 463–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruhin, A., et al. (2010), ‘Risk and rationality: uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion’, Econometrica, 78(4): 1375–1412.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. and Ho, T.-H. (1994), ‘Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chark, R. et al. (2016), ‘Individual preference for longshots’, Journal of the European Economic Association.Google Scholar
Cole, S. et al. (2018), “Can gambling increase savings? Empirical evidence on prize-linked savings accounts”. Working paper.. URL: http://beniverson.org/papers/MaMa.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ebert, S. and Strack, P. (2015), ‘Until the bitter end: on prospect theory in a dynamic context’, American Economic Review, 105(5): 1618–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, R. and Wu, G. (1999), ‘On the shape of the probability weighting function’, Cognitive Psychology, 38(1): 129–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golik, J. (2016), ‘Expected utility hypothesis – its origin and development’, Gdansk University of Technology.Google Scholar
Guryan, J. and Kearney, M. (2008), ‘Gambling at lucky stores: empirical evidence from state lottery sales’, The American Economic Review, 98(1): 458–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haisley, E. (2008), ‘The appeal of lotteries and their use in incentive design’, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Halevy, Y. (2019), ‘Prospect theory’, Lecture.Google Scholar
Kachelmeier, S. and Shehata, M. (1992), ‘Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People's Republic of China’, American Economic Review, 82(5): 1120–1141.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica, 47(2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koszegi, B. and Rabin, M. (2006), ‘A model of reference-dependent preferences’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4): 1133–1165.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, M. (2017), ‘Prospect theory versus expected utility theory: assumptions, predictions, intuition and modelling of risk attitudes’, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, 9: 275–321.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973), ‘Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: an extended replication in Las Vegas’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1): 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, W. and Stowe, J. (2002), ‘A further examination of cumulative prospect theory parameterizations’, The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(1): 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfiffelmann, M. (2010), ‘Solving the St. Petersburg Paradox in cumulative prospect theory: the right amount of probability weighting’, Theory and Decision, 71: 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, R. (1986), ‘Consistency and expected utility theory’, Recent Developments in the Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory, 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prelec, D. (1998), ‘The probability weighting function’, Econometrica, 66: 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), ‘Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpp, K. et al. (2008), ‘Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss’, JAMA, 300(22): 2631–2637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakker, P. (2008), “Prospect theory for risk and ambiguity”. Textbook. URL: http://www.albacharia.ma/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/32074/wakkerptdec.pdf?sequence=1&origin=publication_detailGoogle Scholar
Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1996), ‘Curvature of the probability weighting function’, Management Science, 42: 1676–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar