The Independence Transformation: A Review and Some Further Explorations

Part of the Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics book series (ASTA, volume 25)


The objective of this chapter is to discuss the relationship between the technique of principal components, first applied to economic data in the pioneering paper by Stone (1947), and the analysis of consumer demand.


Marginal Utility Income Elasticity Composition Matrix Demand Equation Budget Share 
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. Barnett, W.A.: 1974, Labor Supply and the Allocation of Consumption Expenditure, Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, W.A.: 1979, “Theoretical Foundations for the Rotterdam Model,” Review of Economic Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Barten, A.P.: 1964, “Consumer Demand Functions Under Conditions of Almost Additive Preferences,” Econometrica, 32, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barten, A.P., Kloek, T. and Lempers, F.B.: 1969, “A Note on a Class of Utility and Production Functions Yielding Everywhere Differentiable Demand Functions,” Review of Economic Studies, 36, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G.S.: 1965, “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Econometric Journal, 75,493–517.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, J.R., Gorman, W.M., and Pudney, S.E.: 1977, “Demand for Related Goods: A Progress Report,” in M.D. Intriligator, ed., Frontiers of Quantitative Economics, Vol. III A, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 87–101.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, R.B.: 1970, Diagonalizing the Hessian Matrix of the Consumer’s Utility Function, Doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Deaton, A.S.: 1979, “The Distance Function and Consumer Behaviour with Applications to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation,” Review of Economic Studies, 46, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diewert, W.E.: 1974, “Applications of Duality Theory,” in M.D. Intriligator and D.A. Kendrick, eds., Frontiers of Quantitative Economics, Vol. II, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 106–171.Google Scholar
  10. Divisia, F.: 1925, “L’indice monétaire et la théorie de la monnaie,” Revue d’Economie Politique, 39, 980–1008.Google Scholar
  11. Flinn, C.: 1978, “A Preference Independence Transformation Involving Leisure,” Report 7847 of the Center for Mathematical Studies in Business and Economics, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Frisch, R.: 1932, New Methods of Measuring Marginal Utility, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  13. Geary, R. C. (1950) “A Note on A Constant Utility Index of the Cost of Living,” Review of Economic Studies, 18, 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorman, W.M.: 1956, “Demand for Related Goods,” Journal Paper J3129, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  15. Gorman, W.M.: 1959, “Demand for Fish: An Application of Factor Analysis,” Birmingham Discussion Paper A6.Google Scholar
  16. Gorman, W.M.: 1976a, “Tricks with Utility Functions,” in M.J. Artis and A.R. Nobay, eds., Essays in Economic Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 211–243.Google Scholar
  17. Gorman, W.M.: 1976b, “A Possible Procedure for Analysing Quality Differentials in the Egg Market,” Discussion Paper No. B4 of the London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, R.E.: 1973, “The Specification of Technology with Several Kinds of Output,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 878–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houthakker, H.S.: 1960, “Additive Preferences,” Econometrica, 28, 244–257; errata, 30 (1962), 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, L.R., and Rubin, H.: 1948, “A Constant-Utility Index of the Cost of Living,” Review of Economic Studies, 15, 84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laitinen, K., and Theil, H.: 1978, “Supply and Demand of the Multiproduct Firm,” European Economic Review, 11, 107–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lancaster, K.J.: 1966, “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster, K.J.: 1971, Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. MaCurdy, T.: 1975, “The Firm’s Demand for Inputs When These Inputs Are Blockwise Dependent,” Report 7539 of the Center for Mathematical Studies in Business and Economics, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. McFadden, D.: 1978, “Cost, Revenue, and Profit Functions,” in M. Fuss and D. McFadden, eds., Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  26. Pearce, I.F. 1961, “An Exact Method of Consumer Demand Analysis,” Econometrica, 29, 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearce, I.F.: 1964, A Contribution to Demand Analysis, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stone, R.: 1947, “On the Interdependence of Blocks of Transactions,” Supplement, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 9, 1–45.Google Scholar
  29. Stone, R.: 1954, “Linear Expenditure Systems and Demand Analysis: An Application to the Pattern of British Demand,” Economic Journal, 64, 511–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Theil, H.: 1967, Economics and Information Theory, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Theil, H.: 1975–76, Theory and Measurement of Consumer Demand, two volumes, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  32. Theil, H.: 1977, “The Independent Inputs of Production,” Econometrica, 45, 1303–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Theil, H.: 1980, The System-Wide Approach to Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Note added in proof

  1. Chang, F.R.: 1980, “The Maximal Degree of Dependence Among Inputs, Outputs, and Consumer Goods,” Economics Letters, 5, 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Meisner, J.F., and Clements, K.W.: 1979, “Specific Complements and the Demand for Money in Australia,” Economics Letters, 3, 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Nasse, P.: 1970, “Analyse des effets de substitution dans un système complet de fonctions de demande,” Annales de l’Insée, 5, 81–110.Google Scholar
  4. Offenbacher, E.K.: 1980, “The Basic Functions of Money: An Application of the Input Independence Transformation,” Economics Letters, 5, 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Rossi, P.E.: 1979, “The Independence Transformation of Specific Substitutes and Specific Complements.” Economics Letters, 2, 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Theil, H.: 1979, “Equicorrelated Substitutes and Nasse’s Extension of the Linear Expenditure System.” Economics Letters, 3, 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Theil, H.: 1980, “The Independence Transformation under Almost Additivity,” Economics Letters, 5, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations