The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Transitivity

  • Wayne Shafer
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1659

Abstract

Transitivity is formally just a property that a binary relation might possess, and thus one could discuss the concept in any context in economics in which an ordering relation is used. Here, however, the discussion of transitivity will be limited to its role in describing an individual agent’s choice behaviour. In this context transitivity means roughly that if an agent chooses A over B, and B over C, that agent ought to choose A over C, or at least be indifferent. On the surface this seems reasonable, even ‘rational’, but this ignores how complicated an agent’s decision making process can be. For an excellent discussion of this issue see May (1954). Given a model of agent behaviour, transitivity can be imposed as a direct assumption, or can be an implication of the model for choice behaviour. The standard model of agent behaviour in economics is that the agent orders prospects by means of a utility function, which in effect assumes transitivity. With appropriate continuity and convexity restrictions on utility functions, the model allows one to demonstrate that: (1) Individual demand functions are well defined, continuous, and satisfy the comparative static restriction, the strong axiom of revealed preference (SARP). (In the smooth case, this corresponds to the negative semi-definiteness and symmetry of the Slutsky matrix.) (2) Given a finite collection of such agents with initial endowments of goods, a competitive equilibrium exists. What will be discussed in the remaining part of this article is to what extent one can obtain results analogous to (1) and (2) above while using a model of agent behaviour which does not assume or imply transitive behaviour. To keep the discussion as simple as possible, we will only consider the situation in which the agent’s set of feasible commodity vectors is the non-negative orthant of n-dimensional Euclidean space, and the agent’s problem is to choose a commodity vector x when faced with positive prices and income. A vector p in the positive orthant of Euclidean n-space will denote the vector of price-income ratios, or a ‘price’ system.

Keywords

Convexity Integrability Law of demand Principle of persistent nonpreference Strong axiom of revealed preference Transitivity Weak axiom of revealed preference 

JEL Classifications

C0 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Allen, R.G.D. 1932. The foundations of a mathematical theory of exchange. Economica 12: 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Debreu, G. 1954. Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In Decision processes, ed. R.M. Thrall, C.H. Combs, and R.L. Davis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Frisch, R. 1926. Sur un problème d’économie pure. Norsk matematisk forenings skrifter 16: 1–40.Google Scholar
  4. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1936. The pure theory of consumer’s behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics 50: 545–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1954. Choice and revealed preference. Southern Economic Journal 21 (October): 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Katzner, D. 1971. Demand and exchange analysis in the absence of integrability conditions. In Preferences, utility, and demand, ed. J. Chipman et al. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  7. Kim, T., and M. Richter. 1986. Nontransitive-nontotal consumer theory. Journal of Economic Theory 38: 324–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mas-Colell, A. 1974. An equilibrium existence theorem without complete or transitive preferences. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. May, K. 1954. Intransitivity, utility, and aggregation in preference patterns. Econometrica 22: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shafer, W. 1974. The nontransitive consumer. Econometrica 42: 913–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sonnenschein, H. 1971. Demand theory without transitive preferences, with applications to the theory of competitive equilibrium. In Preferences, utility, and demand, ed. J. Chipman et al. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne Shafer
    • 1
  1. 1.