Skip to main content

Interpersonally Comparable Utility

  • Chapter
Handbook of Utility Theory

Abstract

Over many years, interpersonal comparisons of utility have had a significant role to play in economics. Utility began as a basic concept on which Prances Hutcheson, Cesare Beccarla, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick sought to build a general ethical theory that is simple yet profound. The resulting classical utilitarian theory relied on interpersonal comparisons because it required a common unit with which to measure each person’s pleasure or happiness, before adding to arrive at a measure of total happiness. According to the standard reading of Bentham, one should then proceed to subtract each person’s pain or misery, also measured in the same common unit, in order to arrive at a measure of total utility.1

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arneson, R. (1989). Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies, 56:77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arneson, R. (1990). Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19:158–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1950). A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58:328–346. Reprinted in Arrow (1983), chapter 1, pp. 1-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951, 1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2 edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1971). A Utilitarian Approach to the Concept of Equality in Public Expenditure. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85:409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1977). Extended Sympathy and the Possibility of Social Choice. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 67:219–225. Reprinted in Arrow (1983), chapter 11, pp. 147-161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1983). Collected Papers of Kenneth J. Arrow, Vol. 1: Social Choice and Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J., Chenery, H. B., Minhas, B. S., and Solow, R. M. (1961). Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency. Review of Economics and Statistics, 43:225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the Measurement of Inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2:244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, A. B. (1995). Public Economics in Action. The Basic Income-Flat Tax Proposal. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandyopadhyay, T. (1988). Revealed Preference Theory, Ordering and the Axiom of Sequential Path Independence. Review of Economic Studies, 55:343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, E. (1908). Il ministero della produzione nello stato colletivista. Giornale degli Economisti, 37:267–293 and 391-414. Translated as “The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State” in F. A. Hayek (ed.) (1935), Collectivist Economic Planning (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul), pp. 310-334; reprinted in P. Newman (ed.), Readings in Mathematical Economics, Vol. I: Value Theory (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barten, A. P. (1964). Family Composition, Price, and Expenditure Patterns. In Hart, P., Mills, G., and Whitaker, J. K., editors, Econometric Analysis for National Economic Planning (16th Symposium of the Colston Society), pages 277–292. Butterworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becht, M. (1995). The Theory and Estimation of Individual and Social Welfare Measures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 9:53–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, M. and Lepelley, D. (1994). On Probability Models in Voting Theory. Statistica Neerlandica, 48:133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, A. (1954). On the Concept of Social Welfare. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68:233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, D. (1948). On the Rationale of Group Decision Making. Journal of Political Economy, 56:23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., and Donaldson, D. (1995). Intertemporal Population Ethics: Critical-Level Utilitarian Principles. Econometrica, 63:1303–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., and Donaldson, D. (1996). Intertemporally Consistent Population Ethics: Classical Utilitarian Principles. In Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K., editors, Social Choice Re-Examined, volume 2, chapter 13, pages 137–162. Macmillan, London. IEA Conference Volume, no. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., and Donaldson, D. (1997a). Birth-Date Dependent Population Ethics: Critical-Level Principles. Journal of Economic Theory, 77:260–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., and Donaldson, D. (1997b). Critical-Level Utilitarianism and the Population-Ethics Dilemma. Economics and Philosophy, 13:197–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., and Donaldson, D. (1998). Uncertainty and Critical-Level Population Principles. Journal of Population Economics, 11:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D. (1988). Cash versus Kind, Self-Selection, and Efficient Transfers. American Economic Review, 78:691–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D. (1990). A Review Article: The Case Against the Use of the Sum of Compensating Variations in Cost-Benefit Analysis. Canadian Journal of Economics, 23:471–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D. (1991). Adult-Equivalence Scales, Interpersonal Comparisons of Weil-Being, and Applied Welfare Economics. In Elster, J. and Roemer, J. E., editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, chapter 6, pages 164–199. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D. (1993a). Adult-Equivalence Scales and the Economic Implementation of Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being. Social Choice and Welfare, 10:335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C. and Donaldson, D. (1993b). Household Equivalence Scales and Welfare Comparisons: A Comment. Journal of Public Economics, 50:143–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Donaldson, D., and Weymark, J. (1984). Social Choice with Interpersonal Utility Comparisons: A Diagrammatic Introduction. International Economic Review, 25:327–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Donaldson, D., and Weymark, J. (1990). A Welfaristic Proof of Arrow’s Theorem. Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 56:259–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (1992). The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Border, K. C. (1985). More on Harsanyi’s Utilitarian Cardinal Welfare Theorem. Social Choice and Welfare, 1:279–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, G., Hammond, P. J., and Le Breton, M. (1997). Social Welfare Functionals on Restricted Domains and in Economic Environments. Stanford University, Department of Economics Working Paper No. 97-023. Available at http://www-econ.Stanford.edu/facuity/workp/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, W. (1991). On Intra-and Interpersonal Utility Comparisons. Social Choice and Welfare, 8:207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1990). Bolker-Jeffrey Expected Utility Theory and Axiomatic Utilitarianism. Review of Economic Studies, 57:477–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1991a). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1991b). Utilitarian Metaphysics? In Elster, J. and Roemer, J. E., editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, chapter 3, pages 70–97. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1993). A Cause of Preference is not an Object of Preference. Social Choice and Welfare, 10:57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1998). Extended Preferences. In Fehige, C. and Wessels, U., editors, Preferences, pages 271–287. W. de Gruyter, Berlin. Reprinted as chapter 3 of J. Broome (1999), Ethics Out of Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. (1987). Compensation Tests. In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. S. and Moore, J. C. (1978). The New Welfare Economics, 1939–1974. International Economic Review, 19:547–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., and Lau, L. J. (1975). Transcendental Logarithmic Utility Functions. American Economic Review, 65:367–383. Reprinted as chapter 1 of Jorgenson (1997a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. and Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and Unemployment. Economic Journal, 104:648–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. and Oswald, A. J. (2002). A Simple Statistical Method for Measuring How Life Events Affect Happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31:1139–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the Currency of Equal Justice. Ethics, 99:906–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods, and Capabilities. In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K., editors, The Quality of Life, pages 9–29. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. and Rappoport, P. (1984). Were the Ordinalists Wrong about Welfare Economics? Journal of Economic Literature, 22:507–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. and Rappoport, P. (1985). Reply to I.M.D. Little’s Comment. Journal of Economic Literature, 23:1189–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, P. J. (1986). Rights and the Private Pareto Principle. Economica, 53:303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulhon, T. and Mongin, P. (1989). Social Choice Theory in the Case of Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities. Social Choice and Welfare, 6:175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (1993). An Enquiry into Weil-Being and Destitution. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont, C. (1985). Axioms for Social Welfare Orderings. In Hurwicz, L., Schmeidler, D., and Sonnenschein, H., editors, Social Goals and Social Organization, chapter 2, pages 19-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont, C. and Gevers, L. (1977). Equity and the Informational Basis of Collective Choice. Review of Economic Studies, 44:199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. B. (1990). Cooter and Rappoport on the Normative. Economics and Philosophy, 6:139–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. B. (1991). Interpretation of Interpersonal Utility Comparisons—Positive, Normative or Descriptive? Journal of Income Distribution, 1:73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meyer, B. and Mongin, P. (1995). A Note on Affine Aggregation. Economics Letters, 47:177–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. (1975). Models and Projections of Demand in Post-War Britain. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980a). Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980b). An Almost Ideal Demand System. American Economic Review, 70:312–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMeyer, F. and Plott, C. R. (1970). The Probability of a Cyclical Majority. Econometrica, 38:345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon, A. and Mertens, J. F. (1999). Relative Utilitarianism. Econometrica, 67:471–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Telia, R., MacCulloch, R. J., and Oswald, A. J. (2001). Preferences over Inflation and Unemployment: Evidence from Surveys of Happiness. American Economic Review, 91:335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. (1967). Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Comment. Journal of Political Economy, 75:765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. and Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). Optimal Taxation and Public Production I: Production Efficiency and II: Tax Rules. American Economic Review, 61:8–27 and 261-278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. and Norman, V. (1980). Theory of International Trade. James Nisbet, Welwyn, Herts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. and Norman, V. (1986). Gains from Trade without Lump-Sum Compensation. Journal of International Economics, 21:99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1981). What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10:283–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue. The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. In David, P. A. and Reder, M. W., editors, Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honour of Moses Abramowitz. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. (1995). Will Raising the Income of All Increase the Happiness of All? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27:35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, U. (1997). Social Welfare When Needs Differ. Economica, 64:233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. (1995). Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome? Economics and Philosophy, 11:25–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. (forthcoming). Utilitarianism versus Fairness in Welfare Economics. In Salles, M. and Weymark, J. A., editors, Justice, Political Liberalism and Utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, D. K. (1970). Lindahl’s Solution and the Core of an Economy with Public Goods. Econometrica, 38:66–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. H. (1997). The Frame of Reference as a Public Good. Economic Journal, 107:1832–1847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, R. C. (1949–50). A Note on ‘A Constant Utility Index of the Cost of Living’. Review of Economic Studies, 18:65–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein, W. V. (1997). Condorcet’s Paradox and the Condorcet Efficiency of Voting Rules. Mathematica Japonica, 45:173–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehrlein, W. V. and Fishburn, P. C. (1976). Condorcet’s Paradox and Anonymous Preference Profiles. Public Choice, 26:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gevers, L. (1986). Walrasian Social Choice: Some Simple Axiomatic Approaches. In Heller, W. P., Starr, R. M., and Starrett, D. A., editors, Social Choice and Public Decision Making: Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glewwe, U. (1997). Household Equivalence Scales and the Measurement of Inequality: Transfers from the Poor to the Rich Could Decrease Inequality. Journal of Public Economics, 44:211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1986). Laundering Preferences. In Elster, J. and Hylland, A., editors, Foundations of social choice theory, chapter 3, pages 75–102. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, W. M. (1953). Community Preference Fields. Econometrica, 21:63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, W. M. (1961). On a Class of Preference Fields. Metroeconomica, 13:53–56. Reprinted in C. Blackorby and A.F. Shorrocks (eds.) (1995), Separability and Aggregation: Collected Works of W.M. Gorman, Volume 1, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, W. M. (1976). Tricks with Utility Functions. In Artis, M. J. and Nobay, A. R., editors, Essays in Economic Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guesnerie, R. (1995). A Contribution to the Pure Theory of Taxation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1975). A Note on Extreme Inequality Aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 11:465–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1976). Equity, Arrow’s Conditions, and Rawls’ Difference Principle. Econometrica, 44:793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1977a). Dynamic Restrictions on Metastatic Choice. Economica, 44:337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1977b). Dual Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility and the Welfare Economics of Income Distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 7:51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1979). Equity in Two Person Situations: Some Consequences. Econometrica, 47:1127–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1980). Dual Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility and the Welfare Economics of Income Distribution: A Corrigendum. Journal of Public Economics, 14:105–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1982). Liberalism, Independent Rights and the Pareto Principle. In Cohen, L. J., Łoś, J., Pfeiffer, H., and Podewski, K.-P., editors, Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science, VI, pages 607–620. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1987a). Social Choice: the Science of the Impossible? In Feiwel, G. R., editor, Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, chapter IB, pages 116–134. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1987b). On Reconciling Arrow’s Theory of Social Choice With Harsanyi’s Fundamental Utilitarianism. In Feiwel, G. R., editor, Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, chapter 4, pages 179–222. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1988). Consequentialist Demographic Norms and Parenting Rights. Social Choice and Welfare, 5:127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1990). Theoretical Progress in Public Economics: A Provocative Assessment. Oxford Economic Papers, 42:6–33. Also in P.J.N. Sinclair and M.D.E. Slater (eds.) (1991), Taxation, Private Information and Capital, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1991a). Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Why and How They Are and Should Be Made. In Elster, J. and Roemer, J. E., editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, chapter 7, pages 200–254. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1991b). Independence of Irrelevant Interpersonal Comparisons. Social Choice and Welfare, 8:1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1992). Harsanyi’s Utilitarian Theorem: A Simpler Proof and Some Ethical Connotations. In Selten, R., editor, Rational Interaction: Essays in Honor of John Harsanyi, pages 305–319. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1994). Money Metric Measures of Individual and Social Welfare Allowing for Environmental Externalities. In Eichhorn, W., editor, Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality, pages 694–724. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1995). Social Choice of Individual and Group Rights. In Barnett, W. A., Moulin, H., Salles, M., and Schofield, N., editors, Social Choice, Welfare, and Ethics, chapter 3, pages 55–77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1996). Consequentialist Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics. In Farina, F., Hahn, F., and Vannucci, S., editors, Ethics, Rationality, and Economic Behaviour, pages 92–118. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (1999). Multilaterally Strategy-Proof Mechanisms in Random Aumann-Hildenbrand Macroeconomies. In Wooders, M., editor, Topics in Game Theory and Mathematical Economics: Essays in Honor of Robert J. Aumann, pages 171–187. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. (2000). Reassessing the Diamond/Mirrlees Efficiency Theorem. In Hammond, P. J. and Myles, G. D., editors, Incentives, Organization, and Public Economics: Papers in Honour of Sir James Mirrlees, chapter 12, pages 193-216. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P. J. and Sempere, J. (1995). Limits to the Potential Gains from Economic Integration and Other Supply Side Policies. Economic Journal, 105:1180–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harberger, A. C. (1971). Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Analysis. Journal of Economic Literature, 9:785–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harberger, A. C. (1978). On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost Benefit Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 86:S87–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1955). Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63:309–321. Reprinted in Phelps (1973) and Harsanyi (1976).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1976). Essays on Ethics, Social Behavior, and Scientific Explanation. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1982). Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour. In Sen, A. K. and Williams, B., editors, Utilitarianism and Beyond, chapter 2, pages 39–62. Cambridge University Press and Editions de la MSH, Cambridge and Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi, J. C. (1987). Interpersonal Utility Comparison. In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennipman, P. (1988). A New Look at the Ordinalist Revolution: Comments on Cooter and Rappoport. Journal of Economic Literature, 26:89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennipman, P. (1992). Hicks, Robbins, and the Demise of Pigovian Welfare Economics: Rectification and Amplification. Southern Economic Journal, 59:88–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. R. (1959). Essays in World Economics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. R. (1981). Wealth and Welfare: Collected Essays on Economic Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isbell, J. R. (1959). Absolute Games. In Tucker, A. W. and Luce, R. D., editors, Contributions to the Theory of Games, pages 357–396. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1990). Aggregate Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Social Welfare. Econometrica, 58:1007–1040. Reprinted as chapter 1 of Jorgenson (1997b).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1997a). Welfare Volume 1: Aggregate Consumer Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1997b). Welfare Volume 2: Measuring Social Welfare. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W., Lau, L. J., and Stoker, T. M. (1982). The Transcendental Logarithmic Model of Aggregate Consumer behavior. In Basmann, R. L. and Rhodes, G., editors, Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 1, pages 97–238. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn. Reprinted as chapter 8 of Jorgenson (1997a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. and Slesnick, D. T. (1983). Individual and Social Cost-of-Living Indices. In Diewert, W. E. and Mont marquette, C., editors, Price Level Measurement, pages 241–323. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Reprinted as chapter 2 of Jorgenson (1997b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. and Slesnick, D. T. (1987). Aggregate Consumer Behavior and Household Equivalence Scales. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 5:219–232. Reprinted as chapter 5 of Jorgenson (1997b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., and Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112:375–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Economic Journal, 49:549–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko, M. (1984). On Interpersonal Utility Comparisons. Social Choice and Welfare, 1:165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko, M. and Nakamura, K. (1979). The Nash Social Welfare function. Econometrica, 47:423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, M. and Ng, Y. K. (1987). Arrow’s Independence Condition and the Bergson-Samuelson Tradition. In Feiwel, G. R., editor, Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, chapter 5, pages 223–242. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, L. R. and Rubin, H. (1947–48). A Constant Utility Index of the Cost of Living. Review of Economic Studies, 15:84–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1968). The Optimal Production of Social Justice. In Margolis, J. and Guitton, H., editors, Public Economics: An Analysis of Public Production and Consumption and their Relations to the Private Sector, pages 145–200. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1972). Justice et équité. Editions du CNRS, Paris. Translated as Justice and Equity (1998), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1994). The Meaning of Fundamental Preferences. Social Choice and Welfare, 11:193–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1995). The Economics of Social Sentiments: The Case of Envy. Japanese Economic Review, 46:63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1996). Modern Theories of Justice. Mass: MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, L. J. (1982). A Note on the Fundamental Theorem of Exact Aggregation. Economics Letters, 9:119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel, A. (1989). Household Equivalence Scales and Welfare Comparisons. Journal of Public Economics, 39:377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel, A. (1991). Cost of Characteristics Indices and Household Equivalence Scales. European Economic Review, 35:1277–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewbel, A. (1993). Household Equivalence Scales and Welfare Comparisons: Reply. Journal of Public Economics, 50:147–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, I. M. D. (1957). A Critique of Welfare Economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, K. O. (1952). A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decisions. Econometrica, 20:680–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, K. O. (1985). Robert Cooter and Peter Rappoport, ‘Were the Ordinalists Wrong about Welfare Economics?’: A Comment. Journal of Economic Literature, 23:1186–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayston, D. J. (1974). The Idea of Social Choice. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayston, D. J. (1980). Where Did Prescriptive Welfare Economics Go Wrong? In Currie, D. A. and Peters, W., editors, Contemporary Economic Analysis, Vol. 2, chapter 7, pages 175–216. Croom-Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarvey, D. (1953). A Theorem on the Construction of Voting Paradoxes. Econometrica, 21:608–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, R. D. (1976). Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12:472–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milleron, J. C. (1972). Theory of Value with Public Goods: A Survey Article. Journal of Economic Theory, 5:419–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation. Review of Economic Studies, 38:175–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirrlees, J. A. (1982). The Economic Uses of Utilitarianism. In Sen, A. K. and Williams, B., editors, Utilitarianism and Beyond, chapter 3, pages 63–84. Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Cambridge and Paris.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mongin, P. and d’Aspremont, C. (1998). Utility Theory and Ethics. In Barberà, S., Hammond, P. J., and Seidl, C., editors, Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. I, chapter 10, pages 371–482. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. and Thomson, W. (1996). Axiomatic Analysis of Resource Allocation Problems. In Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K., editors, Social Choice Re-Examined, Vol. 1, chapter 5, pages 101–120. Macmillan, London. IEA Conference Volume, no. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (1993). The Pursuit of Happiness: Who is Happy and Why? Avon, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. (1985). Bayesian Equilibrium and Incentive Compatibility: An Introduction. In Hurwicz, L. and Schmeidler, D., editors, Social Goals and Social Organization, chapter 8, pages 229–259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagahisa, R. and Suga, K. (1998). Impossibility Theorems with Interpersonally Comparable Welfare Levels: The ‘Extended Sympathy’ Approach Reconsidered. Japanese Economic Review, 49:171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narens, L. and Luce, R. D. (1983). How We May Have Been Misled into Believing in the Interpersonal Comparability of Utility. Theory and Decision, 15:247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. F. (1950). The Bargaining Problem. Econometrica, 18:155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y. K. (1996). Happiness Surveys: Some Comparability Issues and an Exploratory Survey Based on Just Perceivable Increments. Social Indicators Research, 38:1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (1993). Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach. In Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K., editors, The Quality of Life, pages 242–269. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and Economic Performance. Economic Journal, 107:1815–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E. (1979). Equity, Nonfeasible Alternatives and Social Choice: A Reconsideration of the Concept of Social Welfare. In Laffont, J. J., editor, Aggregation and Revelation of Preferences. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E. and Schmeidler, D. (1978). Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92:671–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. J. M. (1992). Axiomatic Bargaining Game Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E. S. (1973). Economic Justice. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R. (1973). Path Independence, Rationality, and Social Choice. Econometrica, 41:1075–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large. Econometrica, 32:122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, L. (1932). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, L. (1938). Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment. Economic Journal, 48:635–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, L. (1981). Economics and Political Economy. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 71:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. W. S. (1980a). Possibility Theorems with Interpersonally Comparable Welfare Levels. Review of Economic Studies, 47:409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. W. S. (1980b). Interpersonal Comparability and Social Choice Theory. Review of Economic Studies, 47:421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. W. S. (1995). Valued Opinions or Opinionated Values: The Double Aggregation Problem. In Basu, K., Pattanaik, P. K., and Suzumura, K., editors, Choice, Welfare and Development: A Festschrift in Honour of Amartya K. Sen, chapter 8, pages 141–165. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. W. S. (1996). Interpersonal Comparisons of the Extended Sympathy Type and the Possibility of Social Choice: Discussion. In Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K., editors, Social Choice Re-examined, Vol. 2, pages 230–236. Macmillan, London. IEA Conference Volume, no. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. W. S. (1997). Objective Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Social Choice and Welfare, 14:79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. (1993). A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22:146–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of Opportunity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, E. F. (1995). Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Positive, Normative or Value-Laden? Journal of Economic Methodology, 2:239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. E. (1979). Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of Economic Analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1947–48). Some Implications of Linearity. Review of Economic Studies, 15:88–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1956). Social Indifference Curves. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1977). Reaffirming the Existence of ‘Reasonable’ Bergson-Samuelson Social Welfare Functions. Economica, 44:81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1987). Sparks from Arrow’s Anvil. In Feiwel, G. R., editor, Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy, chapter 3, pages 154–178. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick, F. (1971). Beyond Utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy, 68:657–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schüssler, R. (1998). Wish You Were Me: A Reply to Broome and a Comment on Harsanyi’s Extended Preference Theory. In Fehige, C. and Wessel, U., editors, Preferences, pages 288–297. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scitovsky, T. (1941). A Note on Welfare Propositions in Economics. Review of Economic Studies, 9:77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1970a). Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden-Day, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1970b). The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78:152–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1973). On Economic Inequality. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1977). On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis. Econometrica, 45:1539–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1979). Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: or What’s Wrong with Welfare Economics? Economic Journal, 89:537–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of What? In McMurrin, S. M., editor, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. I. The University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, Salt Lake City and Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1986). Social Choice Theory. In Arrow, K. J. and Intriligator, M. D., editors, Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Vol. III, chapter 22, pages 1073–1181. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1987). On Ethics and Economics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorrocks, A. F. (1995). Inequality and Welfare Evaluation of Heterogeneous Income Distributions. Discussion Paper 447, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, P. J. (1980). Discussion. In Currie, D. A. and Peters, W., editors, Contemporary Economic Analysis, Vol. 2, pages 217–220. Croom-Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. A. (1974). Interpersonal Welfare Comparisons Can be Made — and Used for Redistribution Decisions. Kyklos, 27:63–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slesnick, D. T. (2001). Consumption and Social Welfare: Living Standards and Their Distribution in the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. R. N. (1954). Linear Expenditure Systems and Demand Analysis: An Application to the Pattern of British Demand. Economic Journal, 64:511–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strasnick, S. (1977). Ordinality and the Spirit of the Justified Dictator. Social Research, 44:668–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, L. W. (1996). Welfare, Happiness and Ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1966). Some Formal Models of Grading Principles. Synthese, 6:284–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura, K. (1983). Resolving Conflicting Views of Justice in Social Choice. In Pattanaik, P. K. and Salles, M., editors, Social Choice and Welfare, chapter 8, pages 125–149. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura, K. (1996). Interpersonal Comparisons of the Extended Sympathy Type and the Possibility of Social Choice. In Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K., editors, Social Choice Re-Examined, Vol. 2, chapter 15, pages 202–229. Macmillan, London. IEA Conference Volume, no. 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, W. (1988). A Study of Choice Correspondences in Economies with a Variable Number of Agents. Journal of Economic Theory, 46:237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, W. (1994). Bargaining Theory: The Axiomatic Approach. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Parijs, P. (1995). Real Freedom for All. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in Nations: Subjective Appreciation of Life in 56 Nations 1946–1992. Erasmus University Risbo, Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey, W. S. (1945). Measuring Marginal Utility by the Reactions to Risk. Econometrica, 13:319–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weymark, J. A. (1984). Arrow’s Theorem with Social Quasi-Order ings. Public Choice, 42:235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weymark, J. A. (1991). A Reconsideration of the Harsanyi-Sen Debate on Utilitarianism. In Elster, J. and Roemer, J. E., editors, Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, chapter 8, pages 255–320. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weymark, J. A. (1993). Harsanyi’s Social Aggregation Theorem and the Weak Pareto Principle. Social Choice and Welfare, 10:209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weymark, J. A. (1995). Further Remarks on Harsanyi’s Social Aggregation Theorem and the Weak Pareto Principle. Social Choice and Welfare, 12:87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. B. (1972). Social Choice without the Pareto Principle. Journal of Economic Theory, 5:478–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkelmann, L. and Winkelmann, R. (1998). Why Are the Unemployed So Unhappy? Evidence from Panel Data. Economica, 65:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (1974). An Axiomatization of the Borda Rule. Journal of Economic Theory, 9:43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (1988). Condorcet’s Theory of Voting. American Political Science Review, 82:1231–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (1994). Equity. In Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (1995). Optimal Voting Rules. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9:51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. and Levenglick, A. (1978). A Consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 35:285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fleurbaey, M., Hammond, P.J. (2004). Interpersonally Comparable Utility. In: Barberà, S., Hammond, P.J., Seidl, C. (eds) Handbook of Utility Theory. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-7964-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-7964-1_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5417-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-7964-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Publish with us

Policies and ethics