Summary and Conclusion
In sum, the cardinal utility numbers generated by neoclassical utility functions provide more information than do their ordinal counterparts. In fact, for any given set of bundles they contain all of the information implicit in ordinal utility numbers for the same set, plus they provide additional information concerning the intensity of the preference for any one bundle relative to any other. It is precisely because utility functions cannot be used to calculate ordinal rankings of bundles without prior calculation of their cardinal utility numbers that the use of utility functions is unacceptable for economic purposes. Moreover, although meaningless with respect to the reality of actual individuals’ preferences, this extra information is harmful because it is misleading.
I conclude by reiterating the purpose of this article. I have attempted to demonstrate that neoclassical utility functions are an invalid means of analyzing consumer behavior for three reasons: first, and most important, because such functions, and their attendant rankings, are cardinal, not ordinal in nature; second, because, with respect to the set of bundles relevant to actual human beings, such functions are not continuous and, therefore, not differentiable; and, third, because such functions do not correctly, consistently, and properly include dimensions/units.
Let me put this in another way. I will accept the validity of utility functions as soon as its proponents can show me how to perform basic mathematical or arithmetic operations on such ordinal numbers as 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 17th.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, William, Walter Block, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ilana Mercer, Leon Snyman, and Christopher Westley. 2001. “The Microsoft Corporation in Collision with Antitrust Law.” Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies 26 (1): 287–302.
Armentano, Dominick T. 1991. Antitrust Policy: The Case for Repeal. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Barnett, William, II. Forthcoming. “Dimensions and Economics: Some Problems.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
Block, Walter. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2 (4): 21–39.
——. 1994. “Total Repeal of Anti-trust Legislation: A Critique of Bork, Brozen and Posner.” Review of Austrian Economics 8 (1): 35–70.
——. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’.” Inquiry 23 (4): 397–444.
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1959. Capital and Interest. 3 vols. Hans F. Sennholz, trans. Spring Mills, Penn.: Libertarian Press.
Boudreaux, Donald J., and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. 1992. “The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust.” Review of Austrian Economics 6 (2): 81–96.
Case, K.E., and R.C. Fair. 2002. Principles of Economics. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (4): 823–38.
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1997. “The Myth of Natural Monopoly.” Review of Austrian Economics 9 (2): 43–58.
Ekelund, Robert B., Jr., and Robert D. Tollison. 1994. Economics. 4th ed. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Frank, R.H. 1991. Microeconomics and Behavior. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Frank, R., and B. Bernanke. 2001. Principles of Economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Garrison, Roger W. 1988. “Professor Rothbard and the Theory of Interest.” In Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard. Richard Ebeling, ed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Gordon, David. 1992. “Toward a Deconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.” Review of Austrian Economics 6 (2): 99–112.
High, Jack, and H. Bloch. 1989. “On the History of Ordinal Utility Theory.” History of Political Economy 21 (2): 351–65.
Katz, Michael L., and Harvey S. Rosen. 1991. Microeconomics. 3rd ed. Boston: Irwin.
Leoni, Bruno, and Eugenio Frola. 1977. “On Mathematical Thinking in Economics.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (2): 101–10.
Mahoney, Daniel. 2001. “On the Representation Theorems of Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Comment.” 〈http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Utility1.PDF〉.
Mas-Colell, A., M.D. Whinston, and J.R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCloskey, Donald. 1982. The Applied Theory of Price. New York: McMillan.
Miller, Roger L. 1997. Economics Today: The Micro View. 12th ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Longman.
McCulloch, J. Huston. 1977. “The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use and of Ordinal Marginal Utility.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 37 (December); in English, pp. 249–80.
Mises, Ludwig von. 1977. “Comments About the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Problems.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (2): 97–100.
Nicholson, Walter. 2002. Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions. Mason, Ohio: SouthWestern College Publishing.
Nozick, Robert. 1977. “On Austrian Methodology.” Synthese 36: 353–92.
Rothbard, Murray N. 1997. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.” In The Logic of Action. Vol. 1: Method, Money, and the Austrian School. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
——. 1993. Man, Economy, and State. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Samuelson, Paul A. 1965. Foundations of Economic Analysis. New York: Atheneum.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1954] 1986. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University.
Thomas, G.B., Jr. 1968. Calculus and Analytical Geometry. 4th ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
——. 1953. Calculus and Analytical Geometry. 2nd ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Varian, Hal. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.
White, Lawrence H. 1995. “Is There an Economics of Interpersonal Comparisons?” Advances in Austrian Economics 2 (A): 135–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Although the paper has been vastly improved through their exertions, the author is still responsible for all remaining errors and infelicities.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barnett, W. The modern theory of consumer behavior: Ordinal or cardinal?. Quart J Austrian Econ 6, 41–65 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-003-1012-4
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-003-1012-4