Structural measures of higher order risk attitudes have well‐developed foundations in Expected Utility Theory (EUT), but little is known about their empirical magnitudes. We introduce a novel experimental design and a companion econometric model that allows us to structurally estimate indices of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance under EUT without imposing restrictions on their interdependence. We find that indices of absolute risk aversion, prudence, and temperance exhibit distinct patterns of variation over income, and that predicted risk premia under EUT and Rank‐Dependent Utility Theory gradually converge as the order of risk increases. These findings are obscured by regular parametric utility functions, which inherently bias results toward prudence and temperance when subjects are risk averse. The results remain robust in subsamples of moderate size, which suggests that our approach can be adopted in broader studies that link higher order risk attitudes to other domains of latent individual preferences and economic behavior.

Earlier version: June 16, 2004; Revision: June 22, 2006

We extend Ellsberg's two-urn paradox and propose three symmetric forms of partial ambiguity by limiting the possible compositions in a deck of 100 red and black cards in three ways. Interval ambiguity involves a symmetric range of 50 − n to 50 + n red cards. Complementarily, disjoint ambiguity arises from two nonintersecting intervals of 0 to n and 100 − n to 100 red cards. Two-point ambiguity involves n or 100 − n red cards. We investigate experimentally attitudes towards partial ambiguity and the corresponding compound lotteries in which the possible compositions are drawn with equal objective probabilities. This yields three key findings: distinct attitudes towards the three forms of partial ambiguity, significant association across attitudes towards partial ambiguity and compound risk, and source preference between two-point ambiguity and two-point compound risk. Our findings help discriminate among models of ambiguity in the literature.

Emissions abatement alone cannot address the consequences of global warming for weather disasters. We model how society adapts to manage disaster risks to capital stock. Optimal adaptation—a mix of firm‐level efforts and public spending—varies as society learns about the adverse consequences of global warming for disaster arrivals. Taxes on capital are needed alongside those on carbon to achieve the first best. We apply our model to country‐level control of flooding from tropical cyclones. Learning rationalizes empirical findings, including the responses of Tobin's q , equity risk premium, and risk‐free rate to disaster arrivals. Adaptation is more valuable under learning than a counterfactual no‐learning environment. Learning alters social‐cost‐of‐carbon projections due to the interaction of uncertainty resolution and endogenous adaptive response.

We investigate the welfare properties of the one-sector neoclassical growth model with uninsurable idiosyncratic shocks. We focus on the notion of constrained efficiency used in the general equilibrium literature. Our characterization of constrained efficiency uses the first-order condition of a constrained planner’s problem. This condition highlights the margins of relevance for whether capital is too high or too low: the factor composition of income of the (consumption-) poor. Using three calibrations commonly considered in the literature, we illustrate that there can be either over- or underaccumulation of capital in steady state and that the constrained optimum may or may not be consistent with a nondegenerate long-run distribution of wealth. For the calibration that roughly matches the income and wealth distribution, the constrained inefficiency of the market outcome is rather striking: it has much too low a steady-state capital stock.