St. Petersburg Paradox and its Importance for Economics
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the Saint Petersburg paradox, which has its 300th anniversary in September 2013. This paradox has played a key role in the development of some scientifi c fi elds including Economics (first of all, the expected utility theory, the hypothesis of declining marginal utility and other approaches) and Financial Modeling. Although many researchers who had discussed this paradox have not recognized the economic nature of this problem, they offered some approaches, which are important for the modern view on economic decision-making under uncertainty. Some applications to financial markets (especially ones that motivate fi nancial decision-making) are also very important.
Keywords:
St. Petersburg paradox, expected utility, marginal utility, financial modeling
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература на русском языке
Ватник П. А. Даниил Бернулли — экономист // Финансы и бизнес. 2008. № 2. С. 188–194.
Нейман Дж. фон, Моргенштерн О. Теория игр и экономическое поведение. М.: Наука, 1970. 707 с.
Шумпетер Й. История экономического анализа. СПб.: Экономическая школа, 2001. 1664 с.
References in Latin Alphabet
Aase K. On St. Petersburg paradox // Scandinavian Actuarial Journal. 2001. N 1. P. 69–78.
Arrow K. J. Alternative approaches to the theory of choice in risk-taking situations // Econometrica. 1951. Vol. 19, N 4. P. 404–437.
Band V. Heft 4. S. 459–485 (Английский перевод: Menger K. The role of uncertainty in economics // Essays in Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press, 1967. P. 211–231).
Bernoulli D. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis // Commentarii academiae imperialis petropolitanae. 1738. T. V. P. 175–192 (Русский перевод: Бернулли Д. Опыт новой теории измерения жребия // Теория потребительского спроса. СПб.: Экономическая школа, 1993. С. 11–27).
Brito D. L. Becker’s theory of the allocation of time and the St. Petersburg paradox // Journal of Economic Theory. 1975. Vol. 10. P. 123–126.
Bru B., Bru M.-F., Chung K. L. Borel et la martingale de Saint-Pétersbourg // Revue d’histoire des mathématiques. 1999. Vol. 5. P. 181–247.
Buffon G.-L. de. Essai d’arithmétique morale // Euvres complètes. T. XV. Paris: Verdière et Ladrange, 1829. P. 338–447.
Czuber E. Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und ihre Anwendung auf Fehlerausgleichung, Statistik und Lebensversicherung. 2. Aufl. 1. Band. Leipzig: Tuebner, 1908. 410 S.
Daston L. J. D’Alambert’s critique of probability theory // Historia mathematica. 1979. Vol. 6. P. 259– 279.
Daston L. J. Probabilistic expectation and rationality in classical probability theory // Historia mathematica. 1980. Vol. 7. P. 234–260.
Durand D. Growth stocks and St. Petersburg paradox // The Journal of Finance. 1957. Vol. 12, N 3. P. 348–363.
Handbook of utility theory. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998. 684 p.
Kelly J. L. A new interpretation of information rate // The Bell system technical journal. 1956. Vol. 35, N 4. P. 917–926.
Keynes J. M. A Treatise on Probability. London: MacMillan and Co., 1921. 466 p.
Markowitz H. M. Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investment. New York: Wiley, 1959. 344 p.
Menger K. Das Unsicherheitsmoment in der Wertlehre // Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie. 1934.
Monmort P. R. de. Essay d’analyse sur les jeux de hazard. Seconde ed. Paris: Jacque Quillau, Imprieur-Juré-Libraire de l’Université, 1713. 416 p.
Neugebauer T. Moral impossibility in the Petersburg paradox: a literature survey and experimental evidence // LSF Research Working Paper Series. 2010. N 10–14. P. 1–43.
Pantaleone M. Contributo alla teoria del riparto delle spese pubbliche // Scritti varii di Economia. Milano; Palermo; Napoli: Libraio della R. Casa, 1940. P. 54–57.
Peters O. The time resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Ser. A. 2011. Vol. 369. P. 4913–4931.
Robertson R. M. Jevons and his precursors // Econometrica. 1951. Vol. 19, N 3. P. 229–249.
Samuelson P. A. St. Petersburg paradoxes: defanged, dissected and historically described // Journal of Economic Literature. 1977. Vol. 15. P. 24–55.
Sauermann H., Selten R. Zur Entwicklung der experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung // Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung. Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1967. S. 1–8.
Spiess O. Zur Vorgeschichte des Petersburger Problems // Die Werke von Jakob Bernoulli. Bd. 3. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1975. 585 S.
Székely G. J., Richards D. The St. Petersburg paradox and the crash of high-tech stocks in 2000 // The American Statistician. 2004. Vol. 58, N 3. P. 225–231.
Thorp E. The Kelly criterion in blackjack sports betting and the stock market // Handbook of Asset and Liability Management. Vol. 1. Elsevier, 2007. Ch. 9. P. 385–428.
Timerding H. E. Die Bernoullische Wertetheorie // Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik. 1902. Bd. 47. S. 321–354.
Todhunter I. A History of the mathematical theory of probability. From the time of Pascal to that of Laplace. Cambridge: MacMillan and Co., 1865. 624 p.
Weber Ch. E. The St. Petersburg paradox: a resolution for impatient risk seekers // International ad- vances in economic research. 1998. Vol. 4. P. 367–373.
Weirich P. The St. Petersburg gamble and risk // Theory and Decision. 1984. Vol. 17. P. 193–202.
Translation of references in Russian into English
Downloads
Published
2013-09-30
How to Cite
Кудрявцев, А. А. (2013). St. Petersburg Paradox and its Importance for Economics. St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies, (3), 041–055. Retrieved from https://economicsjournal.spbu.ru/article/view/2382
Issue
Section
The history of economic growth and economic thought
License
Articles of the St Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
