IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/econom/v50y1991i1-2p69-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept

Author

Listed:
  • van Praag, Bernard M. S.

Abstract

In this paper we distinguish two "dimensions" of the utility concept. The first is the "behavioral" dimension, described by indifference curves in a commodity space. It may be estimated by observing consumer purchase behavior. The second dimension is the "welfare" dimension, i.e., the cardinal utility levels . corresponding to indifference curves. The second dimension may be estimated by means of the income evaluation approach. In this paper we deal with methodological issues and show by means of empirical evidence the validity of the income evaluation approach. In the same time we propose some major modifications of the method. Secondly we show how the two dimensions may be combined. This is illustrated with respect to the AIDS- and the Translog- model. In this way we find how price and income variations influence measured individual welfare.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:50:y:1991:i:1-2:p:69-89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304-4076(91)90090-Z
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard M. S. van Praag & Nico L. van der Sar, 1988. "Household Cost Functions and Equivalence Scales," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 23(2), pages 193-210.
    2. Apps, Patricia & Savage, Elizabeth, 1989. "Labour supply, welfare rankings and the measurement of inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 335-364, August.
    3. Kapteyn, Arie & Wansbeek, Tom & Buyze, Jeannine, 1980. "The dynamics of preference formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 123-157, June.
    4. Jorgenson, Dale W. & Slesnick, Daniel T., 1990. "Inequality and the standard of living," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1-2), pages 103-120.
    5. Van Praag, Bernard, 1971. "The welfare function of income in Belgium: An empirical investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 337-369.
    6. Dale W. Jorgenson & Daniel T. Slesnick, 1984. "Aggregate Consumer Behaviour and the Measurement of Inequality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(3), pages 369-392.
    7. Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J & Stoker, Thomas M, 1980. "Welfare Comparison under Exact Aggregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 268-272, May.
    8. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    9. Van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Kapteyn, Arie, 1973. "Further evidence on the individual welfare function of income: An empirical investigatiion in The Netherlands," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 33-62, April.
    10. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    11. Theo Goedhart & Victor Halberstadt & Arie Kapteyn & Bernard van Praag, 1977. "The Poverty Line: Concept and Measurement," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 12(4), pages 503-520.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. MatthewD. Rablen, 2008. "Relativity, Rank and the Utility of Income," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 801-821, April.
    2. Amiel, Yoram, 1998. "The subjective approach to the measurement of income inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6595, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Bernard M.S. Van Praag, 2004. "The Connexion between Old and New Approaches to Financial Satisfaction," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-053/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 2001. "Poverty in the Russian Federation," IZA Discussion Papers 259, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Melanie Borah & Andreas Knabe & Kevin Pahlke, 2021. "Parental time restrictions and the cost of children: insights from a survey among mothers," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(1), pages 73-95, March.
    6. LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 2008. "The structure of US food demand," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 336-349, December.
    7. Melanie Borah & Carina Keldenich & Andreas Knabe, 2019. "Reference Income Effects in the Determination of Equivalence Scales Using Income Satisfaction Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(4), pages 736-770, December.
    8. Martin Ravallion, 2017. "Inequality and Poverty When Effort Matters," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-19, November.
    9. LaFrance, Jeffrey T & Pope, Rulon D., 2006. "Full Rank Rational Demand Systems," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8qx7n6p9, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    10. Glenn Jones & Elizabeth Savage, 1996. "An Evaluation of Income Splitting with Variable Female Labour Supply," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(218), pages 224-235, September.
    11. Arne Bigsten & Abebe Shimeles, 2004. "Prospects for 'Pro-Poor' Growth in Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-42, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Maria Cracolici & Francesca Giambona & Miranda Cuffaro, 2014. "Family Structure and Subjective Economic Well-Being: Some New Evidence," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 433-456, August.
    13. Jeffrey LaFrance & Rulon Pope & Jesse Tack, 2011. "Risk Response in Agriculture," NBER Chapters, in: The Intended and Unintended Effects of US Agricultural and Biotechnology Policies, pages 143-186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. van Praag, B. M. S., 1984. "Household Cost Functions And Equivalence Scales An Alternative Approach," Econometric Institute Archives 272287, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Buyze, Jeannine, 1982. "The estimation of welfare levels of a cardinal utility function," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 325-332.
    16. Plug, Erik J. S. & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Hartog, Joop, 1999. "If we knew ability, how would we tax individuals?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 183-211, May.
    17. Homan, M. Eitel & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Hagenaars, Aldi J. M., 1985. "Household Cost Functions And The Value Of Home Production In One- And Two-Earner Families," Econometric Institute Archives 272324, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. Plug, Erik J. S. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1998. "Similarity in response behavior between household members: An application to income evaluation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 497-513, August.
    19. Steven F. Koch, 2023. "Basic Needs (in)Security and Subjective Equivalence Scales," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 723-757, October.
    20. Jeffrey LaFrance & Rulon Pope, 2008. "The Generalized Quadratic Expenditure System," Working Papers 2008-27, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:50:y:1991:i:1-2:p:69-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeconom .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.