Advertisement

Significance of the Nonuniqueness of Neoclassical Direct Utility Functions Especially When they are Empirically Confirmed

  • Robert L. Basmann
  • Daniel J. Slottje

Abstract

Whenever a neoclassical direct utility function is in close (even perfect) agreement with consumer behavior data, there is always an alternative direct utility function that agrees at least as closely with the same data. Existence of this equally well (if not better) fitting alternative to such a neoclassical direct utility function has considerable significance for the rational conduct of potential problem analysis in the policymaking arena. [We shall give an important example later in this note.] However the nonuniqueness of the neoclassical utility function on empirical data is rarely mentioned in the literature of economic theory, it appears to be little understood among economists generally, and most doctoral students are never told about it in advanced economic theory courses.

Keywords

Individual Consumer Federal Employee Data Batch Reveal Preference Data Direct Utility Function 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Barnett, W.A. Consumer Demand and Labor Supply. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Basmann, R.L. “A Theory of the Serial Correlation of Stochastic Taste Changes in Direct Utility Functions.” Econometric Theory. 1 (1985): 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Basmann, R.L., Molina, D.J. and Slottje, D.J. “Budget Constraint Prices as Preference Changing Parameters of Generalized Fechner-Thurstone Direct Utility Functions.” American Economic Review. 73 (1983): 411–413.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Basmann, R.L., Diamond, C., Frentrup, C., White, S, S. “Variable Consumer Preferences, Economic Inequality, and the Cost-of-Living Concept. Part Two.” In Advances in Econometrics, Vol. IV. Eds R.L. Basmann and G.F. Rhodes, Jr. New York: JAI press, Inc. 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Fisher, Franklin M. and Shell, Karl. “Taste and Quality Change in Pure Theory of the True Cost-of Living Index.” in Value, Capital, and Growth: Papers in Honor of Sir John Hicks. Edited by J.N. Wolfe. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. 1968.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Harberger, A.L. “Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics,” in Journal of Economics Literature, 9 (1971), pp. 785–797.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Konyus, A.A. “The Problem of the True Index of the Cost-of-Living. Economic Bulletin of the Institute of Economic Conjecture. Moscow; (1924): No. 9–10;Google Scholar
  8. Konyus, A.A., English translation Econometrica. 7 (1936); 110–129.Google Scholar
  9. [8]
    McKenzie, G.W., Measuring Economic Welfare: New Methods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [9]
    Samuelson, P.A. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1948.Google Scholar
  11. [10]
    Samuelson, P.A. and Sato, Ryuzo. “Unattainability of Integrability and Definiteness Conditions in the General Case of Demand for Money and Goods.” American Economic Review. 74 (1984): 588–604.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert L. Basmann
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Slottje
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsBinghamton UniversityBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations