The Measurement of Aggregate Welfare

  • John S. Chipman
  • James C. Moore
Conference paper


The measurement of aggregate welfare is one of the oldest endeavors of economics, dating from the time of Dupuit [17] and Marshall [27] and continuing in contemporary times with the work of Hicks [23]. The implicit assumptions involved in such a pursuit have, however, rarely been formulated. It is the purpose of the present paper to fill this gap.


Aggregate Demand Welfare Change Aggregate Income Aggregate Welfare Welfare Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Allen, R. G. D., “The Marginal Utility of Money and Its Application,” Economics 13 (May 1933), 186–209.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Antonelli, G.-B., Sulla teoria matematica della economia politica. Pisa: nella tipografia del Folchetto, 1886. English translation, “On the Mathematical Theory of Political Economy,” in [8], pp. 332–364.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Barbera, Salvador and Prasanta K. Pattanaik, “Extending an Order on a Set to the Power Set: Some Remarks on Kannai and Peleg’s Approach,” Journal of Economic Theory, 32 (February 1984), 185– 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bergson, Abram, “A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 52 (February 1938), 310–334.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Blackorby, Charles, Richard Boyce, and R. Robert Russell, “Estimation of Demand Systems Generated by the Gorman Polar Form; A Generalization of the S-Branch Utility Tree,” Econometrica, 46 (March 1978), 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chipman, John S., “Estimation and Aggregation in Econometrics: An Application of the Theory of Generalized Inverses,” in M. Zuhair Nashed (ed.), Generalized Inverses and Applications. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1976, pp. 549–769.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Chipman, “Samuelson and Welfare Economics,” in George R. Feiwel (ed.), Samuelson and Neoclassical Economics. Boston: Kluwer- Nijhoff Publishers, 1981, pp. 152–184.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chipman, John S., Leonid Hurwicz, Marcel K. Richter, and Hugo F. Sonnenschein (eds.), Preferences, Utility and Demand. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Chipman, John S. Daniel McFadden, and Marcel K. Richter (eds.),Preferences, Uncertainty, and Optimality. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Chipman, John S. and James C. Moore, “The Compensation Principle in Welfare Economics,” in Arvid M. Zarley (ed.), Papers in Quantitative Economics, Vol. 2. Lawrence, Manhattan, and Wichita, Kansas: The University Press of Kansas, 1971, pp. 1–77.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Chipman, “Social Utility and the Gains from Trade,” Journal of International Economics, 2 (May 1972), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Chipman, “Aggregate Demand, Real National Income, and the Compensation Principle,” International Economic Review, 14 (February 1973), 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Chipman, “On Social Welfare Functions and the Aggregation of Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory, 20 (August 1979), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Chipman, “Consumers’ Surplus as a Measure of Aggregate Welfare,” paper presented at the Montreal meetings of the Econometric Society, 28 June 1979.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Chipman, “Acceptable Indicators of Welfare Change, Consumer’s Surplus Analysis, and the Gorman Polar Form,” in [9], pp. 68–120.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dow, James and Hugo Sonnenschein, “Samuelson and Chipman- Moore on Utility-Generated Community Demand,” in M. H. Peston and R. E. Quandt (eds.), Prices, Competition and Equilibrium. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble, 1986, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Dupuit, Jules, “De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics,” Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, Mémoires et documents relatifs à Vart des constructions et au service de l’ingénieur [2], 2 (2e semestre, 1844), 332–375, PL 75.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Fishburn, Peter C., “Comment on the Kannai-Peleg Impossibility Theorem for Extending Orders,” Journal of Economic Theory, 32 (February 1984), 176–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Gorman, W.M., “Community Preference Fields,” Econometrica, 21 (January 1953), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Gorman, “On a Class of Preference Fields,” Metroeconomica, 13 (August 1961), 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Graaff, J. de V., Theoretical Welfare Economics. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Heiner, Ronald A. and Dennis J. Packard, “A Uniqueness Result for Extending Orders; with Application to Collective Choice as Inconsistency Resolution,” Journal of Economic Theory, 32 (February 1984), 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Hicks, J. R., “The Rehabilitation of Consumer’s Surplus,” Review of Economic Studies, 8 (February 1941), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hurwicz, Leonid and Hirofumi Uzawa, “On the Integrability of Demand Functions,” in [8], pp. 114–148.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Kannai, Yakar and B. Peleg, “A Note on the Extension of an Order on a Set to the Power Set,” Journal of Economic Theory, 32 (February 1984), 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Malinvaud, Edmond, “L’agrégation dans les modèles économiques,” Cahiers du Séminaire d’Econométrie, No. 4 (1956), 69–146.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Marshall, Alfred, Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1890.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Muellbauer, John, “Community Preferences and the Representative Consumer,” Econometrica, 44 (September 1976), 979–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Nataf, André, “Sur des questions d’agrégation en économétrie,” Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Université de Paris, 2 (Fasc. 4, 1953 ), 5–61.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Rader, Trout, “Equivalence of Consumer Surplus, the Divisia Index of Output, and Eisenberg’s Addilog Social Utility,” Journal of Economic Theory, 13 (August 1976), 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell, Convex Analysis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Roy, René, De l’utilité. Contribution à la théorie des choix. Paris: Hermann & Cic, Editeurs, 1942.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Samuelson, Paul A., Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Samuelson, “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic Papers, N.S., 2 (January 1950), 1–29.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Samuelson, “Social Indifference Curves,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70 (February 1956), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Chipman
    • 1
  • James C. Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MinnesotaUSA
  2. 2.Purdue UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations