Complementarity and Demand Theory: From the 1920s to the 1940s

Lenfant, Jean Sébastien

doi:10.1215/00182702-2005-017

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The appearance of Expected Utility Theory in 1944 gave cardinal utility a justification apparently more convincing than the one based on the ranking of transitions, and propelled its use in economics. By showing how cardinal utility entered and stabilized in economic analysis during the ordinal revolution, the paper not only revises the conventional narratives of the history of cardinal utility, but also adds to a series of recent studies that have enriched and partially modified the standard picture of the ordinal revolution itself (Lenfant 2006(Lenfant , 2012Hands 2010Hands , 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis, 1909-1944

Moscati

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How Cardinal Utility Entered Economic Analysis, 1909-1944

Moscati

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, we contribute further to recent efforts to shed light on the brief but pathbreaking collaboration on demand and utility theory between Hicks and Allen (1934). Thus, this paper complements other recent advances in this area by Fernandez-Grela (2006) and Lenfant (2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Andreas Heinrich Voigt and the Hicks‐allen Revolution in Consumer Theory

Schmidt

Weber

2011

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1893, Andreas Heinrich Voigt argued that utility admits only an ordinal characterization. We discuss the apparent impact of Voigt's now forgotten early argument for an ordinal approach to utility on later economists. Edgeworth cited Voigt's ordinal‐cardinal distinction several times in the Economic Journal, bringing both the concept and the terminology into Anglophone economics. In 1927, Rosenstein‐Rodan, too, cited Voigt's argument for ordinal utility. Since Hicks apparently learned the cardinal‐ordinal terminology from Edgeworth, and discussed utility theory and complementarity with Rosenstein‐Rodan, it appears that Voigt's 1893 article is the original source of ordinal utility in economics. (JEL B13, B21)

show abstract

“…It is of interest, however, that there is no reference to this book in McKenzie (2002). 36 It is interesting that this article disappears from the literature: it does not find a place in the references of, for example, Fernandez-Grela (2005), Lenfant (2006), Samuelson (1974) or Samuelson and Swamy (1974). The first papers were presented at the Duke Conference, and this is perhaps the place to acknowledge our indebtedness to them.…”

Section: A Modern Restatementmentioning

confidence: 98%