Theory and Decision

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 37–63 | Cite as

On Ordinal Utility, Cardinal Utility and Random Utility



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.


Ordinal utility Cardinal utility Random Utility Model Log sum Rule-of-a-half 

JEL Classification

B41 Economic Methodology D01 Microeconomic Behaviour Underlying Principles 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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, PergamonGoogle Scholar
  3. Dagsvik, J.K. (2001), Compensated Variation in Random Utility Models. Discussion Paper No. 299, Statistics Norway.Google Scholar
  4. 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): 57–76Google Scholar
  5. 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, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly A.J., Zachary S. (1978) Improved multiple choice models. In: Hensher D.A., Dalvi Q. (eds) Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, WileyGoogle Scholar
  8. Fechner G.T. (1859) Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig, Breitkopf and HärtelGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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 PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Lancaster K.J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lane R., Powell T.J., Prestwood Smith P. (1971) Analytical Transport Planning. London, DuckworthGoogle Scholar
  14. Luce R.D. (1959) Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis. New York, John WileyGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 SonsGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden, D. (1968), The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California, unpublished.Google Scholar
  17. McFadden D. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  18. McFadden D. (1975) The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy: theory. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science 6(2): 401–416Google Scholar
  19. McFadden D. (1976) Quantal choice analysis: a survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5(4): 363–390Google Scholar
  20. 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-HollandGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 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, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, PergamonGoogle Scholar
  24. Manski C.F. (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8, 229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. ReidelGoogle Scholar
  27. Morikawa, T. (1989), Incorportaing stated preference data in travel demand analysis. Dissertation for PhD, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  28. Morikawa T. (1994) Correcting state dependence and serial correlation in the RP/SP combined estimation method. Transportation 21, 153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuburger H. (1971) User benefit in the evaluation of transport and land use plans. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 5(1): 52–75Google Scholar
  30. Small K.A., Rosen H.S. (1981) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49(1): 105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thurstone L. (1927) A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review 34, 273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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): 285–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations