IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hec/heccee/2013-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis, 1909-1944

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan Moscati

Abstract

This paper illustrates the methodological and analytical issues that characterized, as well as the personal and institutional aspects that informed the discussions leading to the definition of the current notion of cardinal utility as utility unique up to positive linear transformations. As originally this type of utility was not called “cardinal”, the paper also investigates the terminological question of when and how the expression “cardinal” was coupled with positive linear transformations. In opposition to existing narratives, the paper shows that cardinal utility entered economic analysis between 1909 and 1944, that is, during the ordinal revolution in utility theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivan Moscati, "undated". "How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis, 1909-1944," Center for the History of Political Economy Working Paper Series 2013-09 4Creation-Date: 2, Center for the History of Political Economy.
    • Handle: RePEc:hec:heccee:2013-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hope.econ.duke.edu/node/800
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandler, Michael, 2001. "Dilemmas in Economic Theory: Persisting Foundational Problems of Microeconomics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195145755.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "Under Uncertainty, Over Time and Regarding Other People: Rationality in 3D," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    3. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    4. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Senderski, Marcin, 2014. "Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility," MPRA Paper 67024, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Yu Gao & Zhenxing Huang & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Measuring Discounting without Measuring Utility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1476-1494, June.
    7. Georgios Gerasimou, 2017. "Preference intensity representation and revelation," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201716, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 01 Jun 2019.
    8. André Lapidus, 2019. "David Hume and Rationality in Decision-Making: A Case Study on the Economic Reading of a Philosopher," Post-Print hal-01831901, HAL.
    9. Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.

    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. John A Weymark, 2012. "Social Welfare Functions," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers vuecon-sub-13-00018, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    2. Carlo Milana, 2019. "Solving the Reswitching Paradox in the Sraffian Theory of Capital," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(6), pages 97-125, November.
    3. Michael Mandler, 2005. "Well‐Behaved Production Economies," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 477-494, November.
    4. Erik Angner, 2011. "Current Trends in Welfare Measurement," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Mario Rizzo, 2014. "James M. Buchanan: Through an Austrian window," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 27(2), pages 135-145, June.
    6. Robert Lepenies, 2014. "Economists as political philosophers : a critique of normative trade theory," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/11, European University Institute.
    7. Duncan K. Foley, 2020. "Socialist alternatives to capitalism I: Marx to Hayek," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 297-311, November.
    8. G. C. Harcourt, 2015. "On the Cambridge, England, Critique of the Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 243-255, June.
    9. D. Wade Hands, 2017. "The road to rationalisation: A history of “Where the Empirical Lives” (or has lived) in consumer choice theory," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 555-588, May.
    10. John Weymark, 2005. "Measurement theory and the foundations of utilitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(2), pages 527-555, December.
    11. Villarreal, Francisco G. & Aravena, Claudio & Jofré, José, 2010. "Estimación de servicios de capital y productividad para América Latina," Estudios Estadísticos 4772, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    12. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.
    13. Ivan Moscati, 2007. "History of consumer demand theory 1871 - 1971: A Neo-Kantian rational reconstruction," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 119-156.
    14. Courard-Hauri David & Lauer Stephen A., 2012. "Taking "All Men Are Created Equal" Seriously: Toward a Metric for the Intergroup Comparison of Utility Functions Through Life Values," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 1-30, August.
    15. Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2003. "Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 52-71, July.
    16. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    17. Georgios Gerasimou, 2017. "Preference intensity representation and revelation," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201716, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 01 Jun 2019.
    18. Duncan K. Foley, 2008. "Comment On ‘The Stability Of General Intertemporal Equilibrium: A Note On Schefold’ By Sergio Parrinello," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 313-316, May.
    19. Mauro Boianovsky, 2005. "DENNIS ROBERTSON ON UTILITY AND WELFARE IN THE 1950s," Anais do XXXIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 33rd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 010, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    20. Yahya Madra & Fikret Adaman, 2010. "Public economics after neoliberalism: a theoretical-historical perspective," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 1079-1106.

    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:hec:heccee:2013-9. 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: Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://hope.econ.duke.edu .

    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.