Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Ordinal Utility, Cardinal Utility and Random Utility

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though the Random Utility Model (RUM) was conceived entirely in terms of ordinal utility, the apparatus through which it is widely practised exhibits properties of cardinal utility. The adoption of cardinal utility as a working operation of ordinal is perfectly valid, provided interpretations drawn from that operation remain faithful to ordinal utility. The article considers whether the latter requirement holds true for several measurements commonly derived from RUM. In particular it is found that measurements of consumer surplus change may depart from ordinal utility, and exploit the cardinality inherent in the practical apparatus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Block, H.D. and Marschak, J. (1960), Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses, in Marschak, J. (1974), Economic Information, Decision and Prediction: Selected Essays (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  • Bradley M.A., Daly A.J. (1997) Estimation of logit choice models using mixed stated preference and revealed preference information. In: Stopher P.R., Lee-Gosselin M. (eds) Understanding Travel Behaviour in an Era of Change. Oxford, Pergamon

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagsvik, J.K. (2001), Compensated Variation in Random Utility Models. Discussion Paper No. 299, Statistics Norway.

  • Dagsvik J.K., Karlström A. (2005) Compensating variation and Hicksian choice probabilities in Random Utility Models that are nonlinear in income. The Review of Economic Studies 72 (250): 57–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly A.J. (1978) Issues in the estimation of journey attribute values. In: Hensher D.A., Dalvi Q. (eds) Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Farnborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly A.J., Zachary S. (1978) Improved multiple choice models. In: Hensher D.A., Dalvi Q. (eds) Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Farnborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu G. (1954) Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In: Thrall R.M., Coombs C.H., Davis R.L. (eds) Decision Processes. New York, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner G.T. (1859) Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig, Breitkopf and Härtel

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P.B., Hensher D.A. (1978) The transport determinants of travel choices: an overview. In: Hensher D.A., Dalvi Q. (eds) Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Farnborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlström, A. (1998) Hicksian welfare measures in a nonlinear random utility framework. Working paper, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Stockholm, presented at the 1st KFB Transport Economics Conference, Borlange, Sweden, June 1998.

  • Karlström A.K. (2001) Welfare evaluations in nonlinear Random Utility Models with income effects. In: Hensher D. (ed) Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge. Sydney, Pergamon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K.J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane R., Powell T.J., Prestwood Smith P. (1971) Analytical Transport Planning. London, Duckworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce R.D. (1959) Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, John Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce R.D., Suppes P. (1965) Preference, utility and subjective probability. In: Luce R.D., Bush R.R., Galanter E. (eds) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Vol. III). New York, John Wiley and Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1968), The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California, unpublished.

  • McFadden D. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (1975) The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy: theory. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 6(2): 401–416

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (1976) Quantal choice analysis: a survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4): 363–390

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (1978) Modelling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A., Lundqvist L., Snickars F., Weibull J. (eds) Spatial Interaction Theory and Residential Location. Amsterdam, North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (1981) Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski C., McFadden D. (eds) Structural Analysis of Discrete Data: With Econometric Applications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (1999) Computing willingness-to-pay in Random Utility Models. In: Moore J., Riezman R., Melvin J. (eds) Trade, Theory and Econometrics: Essays in Honour of John S. Chipman, London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. (2000) Disaggregate Behavioral Travel Demand’s RUM side: a 30 year perspective. In: Hensher D. (ed) Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge. Oxford, Pergamon

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski C.F. (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8, 229–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschak J. (1960) Binary choice constraints and random utility indicators. In: Marschak J. (1974) Economic Information, Decision and Prediction: Selected Essays (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, D. Reidel

  • Marschak J., Becker G.M., DeGroot M.H. (1963), Stochastic models of choice behavior. In: Marschak J. (1974) Economic Information, Decision and Prediction: Selected Essays (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, D. Reidel

  • Morikawa, T. (1989), Incorportaing stated preference data in travel demand analysis. Dissertation for PhD, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Morikawa T. (1994) Correcting state dependence and serial correlation in the RP/SP combined estimation method. Transportation 21, 153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuburger H. (1971) User benefit in the evaluation of transport and land use plans. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 5(1): 52–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Small K.A., Rosen H.S. (1981) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49(1): 105–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J., Louviere J. (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and use of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone L. (1927) A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 34, 273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams H.C.W.L. (1977) On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment and Planning A 9(3): 285–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Richard Batley

Authors
  1. Richard Batley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Batley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batley, R. On Ordinal Utility, Cardinal Utility and Random Utility. Theor Decis 64, 37–63 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-007-9046-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-007-9046-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation