IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v57y2024i1p165-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Random choice and market demand

Author

Listed:
  • Javier A. Birchenall

Abstract

This paper examines a statistical model of choice in which individual decisions have no preferential basis or optimizing behaviour. Individual consumption is chosen at random, while respecting a linear budget set. All the properties of classical demand theory, including symmetry and negative (semi)definiteness of the Slutsky matrix, are shown to be generally satisfied by mean (i.e., market) demands. Despite the fact that individuals are “irrational,” mean demands can be rationalized as the outcome of utility‐maximizing behaviour, even when demands are interior. The severity and frequency of revealed preference violations are unable to reject economic rationality in irrational individuals. Choix aléatoire et demande du marché. Le présent article examine un modèle statistique de choix dans lequel les décisions individuelles ne reposent pas sur une base préférentielle ou un comportement d'optimisation. La consommation individuelle est choisie au hasard, tout en respectant un ensemble budgétaire linéaire. Toutes les propriétés de la théorie classique de la demande, y compris la symétrie et la (semi‐)définition négative de la matrice de Slutsky, sont généralement satisfaites par les demandes moyennes (c.‐à‐d. les demandes du marché). Bien que les personnes soient «irrationnelles», les demandes moyennes peuvent être rationalisées comme le résultat d'un comportement de maximisation de l'utilité, même lorsque les demandes sont intérieures. La gravité et la fréquence des violations des préférences révélées ne permettent pas de rejeter la rationalité économique chez les personnes irrationnelles.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier A. Birchenall, 2024. "Random choice and market demand," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 165-198, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:57:y:2024:i:1:p:165-198
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12687
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12687?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    2. Victor H Aguiar & Nail Kashaev, 2021. "Stochastic Revealed Preferences with Measurement Error [Consistency between Household-level Consumption Data from Registers and Surveys]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(4), pages 2042-2093.
    3. John F. Chant, 1963. "Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71(5), pages 505-505.
    4. Ahn, David S. & Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota, 2018. "On path independent stochastic choice," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    5. Federico Echenique & Sangmok Lee & Matthew Shum, 2011. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1201-1223.
    6. Roy Allen & Paweł Dziewulski & John Rehbeck, 2024. "Revealed statistical consumer theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 823-847, May.
    7. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2015. "A Measure of Rationality and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1278-1310.
    8. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    9. Jeffrey T. LaFrance & W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "The Dual Structure of Incomplete Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 262-274.
    10. William T. Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Timothy R. Berry, 2001. "GARP for Kids: On the Development of Rational Choice Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1539-1545, December.
    11. Deaton,Angus & Muellbauer,John, 1980. "Economics and Consumer Behavior," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521296762, September.
    12. Andrew S. Caplin & Daniel F. Spulber, 1987. "Menu Costs and the Neutrality of Money," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(4), pages 703-725.
    13. Timothy K. M. Beatty & Ian A. Crawford, 2011. "How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2782-2795, October.
    14. Drew Fudenberg & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Stochastic Choice and Revealed Perturbed Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 2371-2409, November.
    15. Raymond Battalio & Leonard Green & John Kagel, 1995. "Economic choice theory. an experimental analysis of animal behavior," Framed Field Experiments 00166, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    17. Aizcorbe, Ana M, 1991. "A Lower Bound for the Power of Nonparametric Tests," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 9(4), pages 463-467, October.
    18. WILLIAM J. McCAUSLAND, 2009. "Random Consumer Demand," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(301), pages 89-107, February.
    19. Varian, Hal R., 1990. "Goodness-of-fit in optimizing models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 125-140.
    20. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    21. Arthur Lewbel, 2001. "Demand Systems with and without Errors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 611-618, June.
    22. Dhananjay K. Gode & Shyam Sunder, 1997. "What Makes Markets Allocationally Efficient?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 603-630.
    23. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    24. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    25. Daniel Burghart & Paul Glimcher & Stephanie Lazzaro, 2013. "An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar..," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 215-246, June.
    26. Cox, James C, 1997. "On Testing the Utility Hypothesis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1054-1078, July.
    27. Larry G. Epstein, 1982. "Integrability of Incomplete Systems of Demand Functions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(3), pages 411-425.
    28. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2006. "Random Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 121-146, January.
    29. Steven D Levitt, 2021. "Heads or Tails: The Impact of a Coin Toss on Major Life Decisions and Subsequent Happiness," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(1), pages 378-405.
    30. Warren C. Sanderson, 1980. "A nonutilitarian Economic Model of Fertility and Female Labor Force Participation," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 31(6), pages 1045-1080.
    31. Grandmont, Jean-Michel, 1992. "Transformations of the commodity space, behavioral heterogeneity, and the aggregation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-35.
    32. Kneip, Alois, 1999. "Behavioral heterogeneity and structural properties of aggregate demand," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 49-79, February.
    33. Varian, Hal R., 1985. "Non-parametric analysis of optimizing behavior with measurement error," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 445-458.
    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. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    2. Roy Allen & Paweł Dziewulski & John Rehbeck, 2024. "Revealed statistical consumer theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 823-847, May.
    3. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    4. Tipoe, Eileen, 2021. "Price inattention: A revealed preference characterisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Eileen Tipoe & Abi Adams & Ian Crawford, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis and bounded rationality [Consume now or later? Time inconsistency, collective choice and revealed preference]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 313-332.
    6. E. Cettolin & P. S. Dalton & W. J. Kop & W. Zhang, 2020. "Cortisol meets GARP: the effect of stress on economic rationality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 554-574, June.
    7. Smeulders, Bart & Crama, Yves & Spieksma, Frits C.R., 2019. "Revealed preference theory: An algorithmic outlook," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 803-815.
    8. Jim Engle-Warnick & Natalia Mishagina, 2014. "Insensitivity to Prices in a Dictator Game," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-19, CIRANO.
    9. Per Hjertstrand & James Swofford, 2014. "Are the choices of people stochastically rational? A stochastic test of the number of revealed preference violations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1495-1519, June.
    10. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Pawel Dziewulski, 2018. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency," Economics Series Working Papers 848, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    13. Allen, Roy & Dziewulski, Paweł & Rehbeck, John, 2022. "Making sense of monkey business: Re-examining tests of animal rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 220-228.
    14. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "Measuring rationality: percentages vs expenditures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 265-277, September.
    15. Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck, 2015. "Revealed preference theory for finite choice sets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(1), pages 169-200, May.
    16. James Andreoni & William Harbaugh, 2005. "Power Indicies for Revealed Preference Tests," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000181, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle & Combs, T. Dalton, 2015. "Consistency in Simple vs. Complex Choices over the Life Cycle," CEPR Discussion Papers 10457, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Timothy K. M. Beatty & Ian A. Crawford, 2011. "How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2782-2795, October.
    19. Jan Heufer & Per Hjertstrand, 2015. "Homothetic Efficiency and Test Power: A Non-Parametric Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-064/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Joshua Lanier, 2020. "Are Consumers Rational ?Shifting the Burden of Proof," Working Papers ECARES 2020-19, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    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:wly:canjec:v:57:y:2024:i:1:p:165-198. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.