This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.
Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window

American Economic Review: Vol. 96 No. 4 (September 2006)

AER Volume. 96, Issue 4 | leftPrevious ArticleNext Articleright

Expand

Quick Tools:

Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export Citation
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter

Explore:

AER - All Issues

AER Forthcoming Articles

Cardinality versus Ordinality: A Suggested Compromise

Article Citation

Mandler, Michael. 2006. "Cardinality versus Ordinality: A Suggested Compromise." American Economic Review, 96(4): 1114-1136.

DOI: 10.1257/aer.96.4.1114

Abstract

By taking sets of utility functions as primitive, we define an ordering over assumptions on utility functions that gauges their measurement requirements. Cardinal and ordinal assumptions constitute two levels of measurability, but other assumptions lie between these extremes. We apply the ordering to explanations of why preferences should be convex. The assumption that utility is concave qualifies as a compromise between cardinality and ordinality, while the Arrow-Koopmans explanation, supposedly an ordinal theory, relies on utilities in the cardinal measurement class. In social choice theory, a concavity compromise between ordinality and cardinality is also possible and rationalizes the core utilitarian policies. (JEL D01)

Article Full-Text Access

Full-text Article

Authors

Mandler, Michael


American Economic Review



AEA Member Login:


Quick Tools:

Email Link to this Issue

Sign up for Email Alerts

Follow us on Twitter

Subscription Information
(Institutional Administrator Access)

Explore:

AER - All Issues

AER - Forthcoming Articles

AEA Journals

Virtual Field Journals

AEAweb | AEA Journals | Contact Us