Theory and Decision

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 219–223 | Cite as

Time, bounded utility, and the St. Petersburg paradox

  • Tyler Cowen
  • Jack High


The assumption of bounded utility function resolves the St. Petersburg paradox. The justification for such a bound is provided by Brito, who argues that limited time will bound the utility function. However, a reformulated St. Petersburg game, which is played for both money and time, effectively circumvents Brito's justification for a bound. Hence, no convincing justification for bounding the utility function yet exists.


St. Petersburg Paradox expected utility bounded utility cardinal utility Becker's theory of time 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, Kenneth: 1974, ‘The Use of Unbounded Utility Functions in Expected-Utility Maximization: Response’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 88, 136–138.Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, Robert: 1977, ‘The St. Petersburg Paradox: A Discussion of Some Recent Comments’, Journal of Economic Theory 14, 443–445.Google Scholar
  3. Bernoulli, Daniel: 1954 [1738], ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’, Econometrica 22, 23–36.Google Scholar
  4. Brito, D. L.: 1975, ‘Becker's Theory of the Allocation of Time and the St. Petersburg Paradox’, Journal of Economic Theory 10, 123–126.Google Scholar
  5. Broome, John: 1987, ‘Utilitarianism and Expected Utility’, Journal of Philosophy 84, 405–422 (August).Google Scholar
  6. Machina, Mark: 1982, ‘Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom’, Econometrica 50, 277–324.Google Scholar
  7. Menger, Karl: 1967 [1934], ‘The Role of Uncertainty in Economies’, in Essays in Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern (ed. Martin Shubik), Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Nozick, Robert: forthcoming, ‘Interpersonal Utility Theory’, Social Choice and Welfare. Parfit, Derek: 1984, Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Samuelson, Paul: 1977, ‘St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected and Historically Described’, Journal of Economic Literature 15, 24–55.Google Scholar
  10. Shapley, Lloyd: 1977, ‘The St. Petersburg Paradox, A Con Game?’, Journal of Economic Theory 14, 439–442.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler Cowen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jack High
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social Sciences, University of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations