Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T11:16:14.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How nurture can shape preferences: an experimental study on risk preferences of Vietnamese fishers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2010

QUANG NGUYEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We combined field experiment and household survey data to investigate whether working in a risky occupation such as fishing makes fishers less risk averse than people in other occupations. The unique characteristic of Vietnam's fisheries enables us to solve the endogeneity problem of occupational choice usually found in this kind of study. We used prospect theory as the main analytical framework and developed a practical procedure to simultaneously estimate the parameters of the utility function under prospect theory. The key finding is that working in a fishery makes economic agents less risk averse than others.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 5 , October 2010 , pp. 609 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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 utilities and probability weighting functions’, Management Science 46: 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., and Paraschiv, C. (2007), ‘Loss aversion under prospect theory: a parameter-free measurement’, Management Science 53: 1659–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bockstael, N.E. and Opaluch, J.J. (1983), ‘Discrete modeling of supply response under uncertainty: the case of the fishery’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 10: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, J.S., Hartog, J., Jonker, N., and Van Pragg, C.M. (2002), ‘Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., and Wagner, G.G. (2010), ‘Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences’, Journal of the European Economic Association, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupont, D.P. (1993), ‘Price uncertainty, expectations formation and fishers’ location choices’, Marine Resource Economics 8 (3): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. and Fehr, E. (2003), ‘Why labor market experiments?’, Labor Economics 10 (4): 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, H. and Lokina, B.R. (2007), ‘Small scale fisher and risk preferences’, Marine Resource Economics 22 (1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, H. and Martinsson, P. (2004), ‘Are commercial fishers risk lovers?’, Land Economics 80 (4): 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, H. and Tveterås, R. (2004), ‘Stochastic production and heterogeneous risk preferences: commercial fishers’ gear choices’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (1): 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G.W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M.M., and Rutström, E. (2005), ‘Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment’, American Economic Review 95 (3): 897–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C.A. and Laury, S.K. (2002), ‘Risk aversion and incentive effects’, American Economic Review 92: 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., Carlsson, F., and Daruvala, D. (2002), ‘Measuring hypothetical grandparents’ preferences for equality and relative standings’, Economic Journal 112: 362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect theory – analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G.A. (1974), ‘Occupational choice, risk aversion, and wealth’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27 (4): 586–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistiaen, J.A. and Strand, I.E. (2000), ‘Location choice of commercial fishermen with heterogeneous risk preferences’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 1184–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, D.T. (2002), Fishers Communities in Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam: Social Sciences Publishing House.Google Scholar
Nguyen, D.Q. (2008), ‘An alternative model of labor supply: the case of Hawaii longline fishery’, Working Paper, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Prelec, D. (1998), ‘The probability weighting function’, Econometrica 66 (3): 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M. (2000), ‘Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem’, Econometrica 68 (5): 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S.E. (2010), ‘Britain's most hazardous occupation: commercial fishing’, Accident Analysis & Prevention 42: 44–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M.D. and Wilen, J.E. (2005), ‘Heterogeneous and correlated risk preferences in commercial fishermen: the perfect storm dilemma’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31 (1): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strotz, R. (1956), ‘Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization’, Review of Economic Studies 23: 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutinen, J.G. (1979), ‘Fishermen's remuneration systems and implications for fisheries development’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy 26 (2): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C., and Nguyen, Q. (2010), ‘Risk and time preferences: field experiments and survey data from Vietnam’, American Economic Review 100 (1): 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), ‘Advances in prospect theory – cumulative representation of uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters & Producers (VASEP) (2001), Fishery Industry Report [Online], http://www.vasep.com.vn/vasep/Potention.nsf/eVietNamSeafoodIndustry.Google Scholar
Viscusi, K. and Hersch, J. (2001), ‘Cigarette smokers as job risk takers’, Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (2): 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voors, M., Nillesen, M., Verwimp, P., Bulte, E., Lensink, R., and van Soest, D. (2010), ‘Does conflict affect preferences? Results from field experiments in Burundi’, MICROCON Research Working Paper 21, Brighton: MICROCON.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. (2004), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
World Bank (2005) World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development, Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wu, G. (1994), ‘An empirical test of ordinal independence’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9: 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yesuf, M. and Bluffstone, R. (2009), ‘Poverty, risk aversion and path dependence in low income countries: experimental evidence from Ethiopia’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (4): 1022–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar