Abstract
This paper discusses the contention of Professor Ragnar Frisch that cardinal utility has a place in dynamic analysis. As for the necessity of cardinal utility in dynamic analysis we note that ordinal utility is incapable of treating the case of calendar-time dependent preferences and we also question whether an ordinal approach can grasp the content of Böhm-Bawerk’s rate of pure time preference. In examining the meaningfulness of cardinal utility in dynamic analysis we look for a canonical way of selecting a set of representations of the preferences which are linear transformations of each other. This may be possible if the preferences admit a concave representation, because there is a result by Debreu that such preferences have a least concave representation, and all such representations are linear transformations of each other. Our methods of analysing this problem do not, however, reach conclusions that will support the claim that cardinal utility is easier to define in a dynamic than in a static framework.
In writing this paper I have benefited from discussions with Arne Amundsen and Trygve Haavelmo.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arrow, K.J. (1963) Social Choice and Individual Values, 1st edn. Yale University Press.
Basu, K. (1980) Revealed Preference of Government, Cambridge University Press.
Basu, K. (1982) ‘Determinateness of the utility function: revisiting a controversy of the thirties’, The Review of Economic Studies, April.
Basu, K. (1984) ‘Utility measurement: a direct proof of Lange’s conjecture’, Economics Letters 15.
Camacho, A. (1979) ‘On cardinal utility’, Theory and Decision 10.
Camacho, A. (1980) ‘Approaches to cardinal utility’, Theory and Decision 12.
Chaudhuri, A. (1985) ‘Formal properties of interpersonal envy’, Theory and Decision 18.
Chomsky, N. (1973) ‘Psychology and ideology’, Ch. 7 in Chomsky, N., For Reasons of State, New York, Vintage Books.
Cooter, R. and Rappoport, P. (1984) ‘Were the ordinalists wrong about welfare economics?’, Journal of Economic Literature XXII, June.
Debreu, G. (1960) ‘Topological methods in cardinal utility theory’, Ch. 2, in Arrow, Karlin, Suppes (Eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, Stanford University Press.
Debreu, G. (1976) ‘Least concave utility functions’, Journal of Mathematical Economics 3.
Fishburn, P.C. (1978) ‘Ordinal preferences and uncertain lifetimes’, Econometrica 46 (4), July.
Frisch, R. (1926) ‘Sur une problème d’economie pure’, Norsk Matern. Forenings skrifter, Ser. 1, (16). English translation in Chipman, J., Hurwicz, L., Richter, M. and Sonnenschein, H. (Eds.), Preferences, Utility and Demand, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich (1971).
Frisch, R. (1947) Notater til Økonomisk Teori. 4. utgave, 2. Hefte, Oslo.
Frisch, R. (1964) ‘Dynamic utility’, Econometrica 32 (3), July.
Gorman, W.M. (1971) ‘Preference, revealed preference, and indifference’, in Chipman, J., Hurwicz, L., Richter, M. and Sonnenschein, H. (Eds.), Preferences, Utility and Demand, New York: Hartcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Houthakker, H.S. (1960) ‘Additive preferences’, Econometrica 28 (2), April.
Jaffray, J.Y. (1985) ‘Interpersonal level comparability does not imply comparability of utility differences — a comment on Ng’, Theory and Decision 19.
Koopman, T.C. (1960)’ stationary ordinal utility and impatience’, Econometrica 28 (2), April.
Lange, O. (1933–1934) ‘The determinateness of the utility function’, The Review of Economic Studies I.
Lange, O. (1934–1935) ‘A note on the determinateness of the utility functionn’, The Review of Economic Studies II.
Mas-Colell, A. (1977) ‘The recoverability of consumers’ preferences from market demand behaviour’, Econometrica 45 (6), September.
Mayston, D.J. (1976) ‘On the nature of marginal utility — a neo-Marshallian theory of demand’, The Economic Journal 86 (343), September.
Morey, E.R. (1985) ‘Confuser surplus’, The American Economic Review, March.
Morishima, M. (1965)’ should dynamic utility be cardinal?’, Econometrica 33 (4), October.
Ng. Y.K. (1984) ‘Interpersonal level comparability implies comparability of utility differences’, Theory and Decision 17.
Phelps-Brown, E.H. (1934–1935) ‘Notes on the determinateness of the utility function’, Review of Economic Studies.
Pollak, R.A. (1965) ‘Dynamic utility’: a comment’, Econometrica 33 (4), October.
Rader, T. (1972) Theory of Microeconomics, Academic Press, New York and London.
Samelson, P.A. (1974) ‘Complementarity. An essay on the 40th anniversary of the Hicks-Allen Revolution in demand theory’, The Journal of Economic Literature 12.
Sheng, C.L. (1987) ‘A note on interpersonal comparisons of utility’, Theory and Decision 22.
Strotz, R.H. (1953) ‘Cardinal utility’, The American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings.
Strotz, R.H. (1955–1956) ‘Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximiation’, The Review of Economic Studies.
Wakker, P. (1986) ‘The repetitions approach to characterize cardinal utility’, Theory and Decision 20.
Wold, H. (1943) ‘A synthesis of pure demand analysis’, Part II, Skandinavisk aktuarietidskrift.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grønn, E. (1994). Cardinalism and Dynamic Analysis in Economic Theory. In: Allais, M., Hagen, O. (eds) Cardinalism. Theory and Decision Library, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0888-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0888-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4384-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0888-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive