Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Economists’ views on the ergodicity problem

Nature Physics volume 16, page 1168 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 02 December 2020

The Original Article was published on 02 December 2019

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Peters, O. The ergodicity problem in economics. Nat. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0732-0 (2019).

  2. Keeney, R. L. & Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives 2nd edn, Ch. 9 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

  3. Meder, D. et al. Ergodicity-breaking reveals time optimal economic behavior in humans. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.04652 (2019).

  4. Hershey, J. C. & Schoemaker, P. J. H. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Manage. Sci. 31, 1213–1231 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Starmer, C. J. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Econ. Lit. 38, 332–382 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Press Release: The Prize in Economic Sciences 2017 (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 2017); https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2017/press-release

  8. L’Haridon, O. & Vieider, F. All over the map: a worldwide comparison of risk preferences. Quant. Econ. 10, 185–215 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grossman, M. J. On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Polit. Econ. 80, 223–255 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Baillon and O. Hulme for useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Jason N. Doctor

  2. Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang

Authors
  1. Jason N. Doctor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter P. Wakker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tong V. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally. The ordering of authors is alphabetical.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter P. Wakker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doctor, J.N., Wakker, P.P. & Wang, T.V. Economists’ views on the ergodicity problem. Nat. Phys. 16, 1168 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01106-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-01106-x

Further reading

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing