IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-151673.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations: A Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Bart Smeulders
  • Laurens Cherchye
  • Bram De Rock
  • Frits Spieksma

Abstract

In a recent and insightful paper, Echenique et al. [4] proposed the Money Pump Index(MPI) as an intuitive measure to evaluate the severity of violations of consumer rationality(defined in terms of revealed preference axioms). For practical applications, they suggest usingthe Mean or Median MPI. In this note, we show that computing these Median and Mean MPIis computationally hard, which makes them impractical in the case of large datasets (including"scanner" datasets as the one used by Echenique et al.). To overcome this problem, we proposeMaximum and Minimum MPIs as easy-to-apply alternatives. These MPIs preserve the intuitionof the Median and Mean MPIs and can be computed efficiently (i.e. in polynomial time). Wealso show the practical usefulness of the Maximum and Minimum MPI through an applicationto the dataset of Echenique et al..
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Bart Smeulders & Laurens Cherchye & Bram De Rock & Frits Spieksma, 2013. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations: A Comment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/151673, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/151673
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    3. Bram De Rock & Bart Smeulders & Laurens Cherchye & Frits Spieksma, 2013. "Goodness of fit measures for revealed preference tests: Complexity results and algorithms," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/162939, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Nimrod Megiddo, 1979. "Combinatorial Optimization with Rational Objective Functions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 414-424, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Pawel Dziewulski, 2016. "Eliciting the just-noticeable difference," Economics Series Working Papers 798, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Note on goodness-of-fit measures for the revealed preference test: The computational complexity of the minimum cost index," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2455-2461.
    4. Nikolay Klemashev & Alexander Shananin, 2015. "Positively-homogeneous Konus-Divisia indices and their applications to demand analysis and forecasting," Papers 1501.05771, arXiv.org.
    5. Castillo, Marco & Freer, Mikhail, 2018. "Revealed differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 202-217.
    6. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    7. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Revealed Preference Test and Shortest Path Problem; Graph Theoretic Structure of the Rationalizability Test," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-17-Rev.2, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics, revised Aug 2016.
    8. 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.
    9. Maria Porter & Abi Adams, 2016. "For Love or Reward? Characterising Preferences for Giving to Parents in an Experimental Setting," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(598), pages 2424-2445, December.
    10. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    11. Schlee, Edward E. & Ali Khan, M., 2023. "Money-metrics in local welfare analysis: Pareto improvements and equity considerations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    12. Shiozawa, Kohei, 2016. "Revealed preference test and shortest path problem; graph theoretic structure of the rationalizability test," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 38-48.
    13. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    14. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Revealed Preference Test and Shortest Path Problem; Graph Theoretic Structure of the Rationalizability Test," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-17-Rev., Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics, revised Jul 2015.
    15. Maria Porter & Abigail Adams, 2014. "For Love or Reward? Characterising Preferences for Giving to Parents in an Experimental Setting," Economics Series Working Papers 709, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    16. Daniel Müller, 2017. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Working Papers 2017-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck, revised Mar 2017.

    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. Smeulders, Bart & Cherchye, Laurens & De Rock, Bram & Spieksma, Frits C.R. & Talla Nobibon, Fabrice, 2015. "Complexity results for the weak axiom of revealed preference for collective consumption models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 82-91.
    2. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Revealed Preference Test and Shortest Path Problem; Graph Theoretic Structure of the Rationalizability Test," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-17-Rev., Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics, revised Jul 2015.
    3. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Note on goodness-of-fit measures for the revealed preference test: The computational complexity of the minimum cost index," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2455-2461.
    4. Alan Beggs, 2021. "Afriat and arbitrage," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(2), pages 167-176, October.
    5. Yuichi Kitamura & Jörg Stoye, 2013. "Nonparametric analysis of random utility models: testing," CeMMAP working papers 36/13, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Changkuk Im & John Rehbeck, 2021. "Non-rationalizable Individuals, Stochastic Rationalizability, and Sampling," Papers 2102.03436, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    7. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram, 2018. "Transitivity of preferences: when does it matter?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), September.
    8. Pawel Dziewulski, 2016. "Eliciting the just-noticeable difference," Economics Series Working Papers 798, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5rkqqmvrn4tl22s9mc0o6ctj2 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10574 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Revealed Preference Test and Shortest Path Problem; Graph Theoretic Structure of the Rationalizability Test," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-17-Rev.2, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics, revised Aug 2016.
    12. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    13. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2023. "Approximate Expected Utility Rationalization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 1821-1864.
    14. 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.
    15. József Sákovics, 2013. "Revealed cardinal preference," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(1), pages 39-45, May.
    16. Ivar Ekeland & Alfred Galichon, 2013. "The housing problem and revealed preference theory: duality and an application," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 425-441, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Avner Seror, 2022. "The Priced Survey Methodology," AMSE Working Papers 2224, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    19. 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.
    20. Dieter Saelens, 2022. "Unitary or collective households? A nonparametric rationality and separability test using detailed data on consumption expenditures and time use," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 637-677, February.
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5rkqqmvrn4tl22s9mc0o6ctj2 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Mir Adnan Mahmood & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Correcting for Random Budgets in Revealed Preference Experiments," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, April.
    23. Ian Crawford & Bram De Rock, 2014. "Empirical Revealed Preference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 503-524, August.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/151673. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    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.