The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Indirect Utility Function

  • Peter Newman
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1245

Abstract

After many independent discoveries that were widely separated in time and space, the indirect utility function has in the last 35 years gradually become a standard part of demand theory. Its first discovery was made as early as 1886 by Antonelli in Italy, who also derived what has come to be known as Roy’s Identity (see Chipman’s introduction to the translation of Antonelli (1886) in Chipman et al. 1971). Later contributions came from Konyus (1924, 1926) and Byushgens in Russia, from Hotelling (1932) and Court (1941, pp. 284–97) in the United States, from Roy (1942, 1947) and Ville (1946) in France, and from Wold (1943–4) and Malmquist (1953) in Sweden; a good brief history may be found in Diewert (1982, pp. 547–50).

JEL Classifications

D1 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Antonelli, G.B. 1886. Sulla teoria matematica della economia politica. Pisa: Tipografia del Folchetto.Google Scholar
  2. Chipman, J.S., L. Hurwicz, M.K. Richter, and H.F. Sonnenschein, eds. 1971. Preferences, utility and demand. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  3. Court, L.M. 1941. Entrepreneurial and consumer demand theories for commodity spectra. Econometrica 9 (135–62): 241–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diewert, W.E. 1982. Duality approaches to microeconomic theory. In Handbook of mathematical economics, ed. K.J. Arrow and M.D. Intriligator, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Ch. 12, 535–599.Google Scholar
  5. Fenchel, W. 1953. Convex cones, sets and functions. New Jersey: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, mimeo.Google Scholar
  6. Hicks, J.R. 1939. Value and capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hotelling, H. 1932. Edgeworth’s taxation paradox and the nature of demand and supply functions. Journal of Political Economy 40: 577–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Houthakker, H.S. 1951. Compensated changes in quantities and qualities consumed. Review of Economic Studies 19: 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Houthakker, H.S. 1960. Additive preferences. Econometrica 28: 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Konyus, A.A. 1924. The problem of the true index of the cost of living. Economic Bulletin of the Institute of Economic Conjuncture 9–10: 64–71. Trans. in Econometrica 7, 1939, 10–29.Google Scholar
  11. Konyus, A.A., and S.S. Byushgens. 1926. K probleme pokupatelnoi cili deneg. Voprosi Konyunkluri 2 (1): 151–172.Google Scholar
  12. Malmquist, S. 1953. Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de estadistica 4: 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roy, R. 1942. De l’utilité: contribution à la théorie des choix. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  14. Roy, R. 1947. La distribution du revenu entre les divers biens. Econometrica 15: 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Samuelson, P.A. 1942. Constancy of the marginal utility of income. In Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics: In memory of Henry Schultz, ed. O. Lange, F. McIntyre, and T.O. Yntema, 75–91. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Shephard, R.W. 1953. Cost and production functions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Varian, H.R. 1984. Microeconomic analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Ville, J. 1946. Sur les conditions d’existence d’une ophelimité totale et d’un indice du niveau des prix. Annales de l’Université de Lyon 9: 32–39. Trans. in Review of Economic Studies 19, 1951, 123–128.Google Scholar
  19. Wold, H.O.A. 1943–4. A synthesis of pure demand analysis. Skandinavisk Aktuarietidskrift 26: 85–144, 220–75; 27: 69–120.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Newman
    • 1
  1. 1.