Theory and Decision

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 245–256 | Cite as

Revealed preference tests for consistency with weakly separable indirect utility

  • Per Hjertstrand
  • James L. SwoffordEmail author


Since Varian (Econometrica 50:945–973, 1982; Review of Economic Studies 50:90–110, 1983) made checking for consistency with revealed preference conditions more accessible to empirical researchers; researchers have often used revealed preference procedures to test their maintained hypotheses and narrow the scope of their demand studies. The tests developed by Varian are for the direct utility function, while researchers estimating demand systems often find it convenient to model consumer behavior with an indirect utility function. Unfortunately structure revealed in the direct utility function does not necessarily follow for the indirect utility function. To remedy this problem, we set forth conditions for checking consumer data for consistency with revealed preference conditions for minimization and weak separability of the indirect utility function.


Revealed preference Indirect utility Weak separability 

JEL Classification

C60 D11 D12 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afriat S. (1967) The construction of a utility function from expenditure data. International Economic Review 8: 67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnhart S. W., Whitney G. A. (1988) Nonparametric analysis in parametric estimation: An application to translog demand systems. Review of Economics and Statistics 70: 149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackorby C., Primont D., Russell R. R. (1978) Duality, Separability, and Functional Structure. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackorby C., Russell R. R. (1994) The conjunction of direct and indirect separability. Journal of Economic Theory 62: 480–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown D., Shannon C. (2000) Uniqueness, stability, and comparative statics in rationalizable Walrasian markets. Econometrica 68: 1529–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherchye D., Rock B., Vermeulen F. (2010) An Afriat’s theorem for the collective model of household consumption. Journal of Economic Theory 145: 1142–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diewert W. E. (1973) Afriat and revealed preference theory. The Review of Economic Studies 40: 419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diewert W. E., Parkan C. (1978) Tests for the Consistency Of Consumer Data and Nonparametric Index Numbers. Discussion Paper 78-27. Department of Economics, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  9. Diewert W. E., Parkan C. (1985) Tests for the consistency of consumer data. Journal of Econometrics 30: 127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drake L. M., Fleissig A. R., Swofford J. L. (2003) A semi-nonparametric approach to the demand for UK monetary assets. Economica 70: 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleissig A. R., Whitney G. A. (2003) A new PC-based test for Varian’s weak separability conditions. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21: 133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forges F., Minelli E. (2009) Afriat’s theorem for general budget sets. Journal of Economic Theory 144: 135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fostel A., Scarf H. E., Todd M. J. (2004) Two proofs of Afriat’s theorem. Economic Theory 24: 211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gross J. (1995) Testing data for consistency with revealed preference. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77: 701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hjertstrand P. (2007) Food demand in Sweden: A non-parametric approach. In: Barnett W.A., Serletis A. (eds) Functional Structure Inference. International Symposia in Economic Theory and Econometrics (ISETE). Elsevier Science, London, pp 157–182Google Scholar
  16. Hjertstrand P. (2009) A Monte Carlo study of the necessary and sufficient conditions for weak separability. In: Binner J.M., Edgerton D.L., Elger T. (eds) Measurement Error—Consequences, Applications and Solutions. Advances in Econometrics (Vol 24). Bingley, UK, Emerald Group Publishing, pp 151–182Google Scholar
  17. Houthakker H. S. (1950) Revealed preference and the utility function. Economica 17: 159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moschini G. (2001) A flexible multistage demand system based on indirect separability. Southern Economic Journal 68: 22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sakai Y. (1977) Revealed favorability, indirect utility, and direct utility. Journal of Economic Theory 14: 113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samuelson P. A. (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica 5: 61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Serletis A., Shahmoradi A. (2005) Semi-nonparametric estimates of the demand for money in the United States. Macroeconomic Dynamics 9: 542–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swofford J. L., Whitney G. A. (1987) Nonparametric tests of utility maximization and weak separability for consumption, leisure and money. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69: 458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swofford J. L., Whitney G. A. (1994) A revealed preference test for weakly separable utility maximization with incomplete adjustment. Journal of Econometrics 60: 235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Varian H. R. (1982) The nonparametric approach to demand analysis. Econometrica 50: 945–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Varian H. R. (1983) Nonparametric tests of consumer behavior. Review of Economic Studies 50: 99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Varian H. R. (2006) Revealed preference. In: Szenberg M., Ramrattan L., Gottesman A. A. (eds) Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations