Abstract
In this paper, it is suggested to formulate assumptions on the comparability of individual utilities in terms of meaningful statements rather than using the usual way of defining such assumptions by means of certain sets of admissible transformations. Various assumptions involving intra- and interpersonal comparisons of utility levels and utility differences are introduced in terms of meaningful statements and compared to their “traditional” counterparts. It is shown that these two approaches are, in general, not equivalent. In a social choice framework, it is demonstrated that the difference between these approaches can be quite substantial: replacing the usual cardinal unit comparability assumption by a condition involving comparisons of utility differences which is similar in spirit turns a well-known characterization of the utilitarian social welfare functional into an impossibility theorem.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York
Basu K (1983) Cardinal utility, utilitarianism, and a class of invariance axioms in welfare analysis. J Math Econ 12: 193–206
Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1982) Ratio-scale and translation-scale full interpersonal comparability without domain restrictions: admissible social evaluation functions. Int Econ Rev 23: 249–268
Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1991) Adult-equivalence scales, interpersonal comparisons of well-being, and applied welfare economics. In: Elster J, Roemer J (eds) Interpersonal comparisons and distributive justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Blackorby C, Donaldson D, Weymark JA (1984) Social choice with interpersonal utility comparisons: a diagrammatic introduction. Int Econ Rev 25: 327–356
Bossert W, Stehling F (1989) Admissible transformations for interpersonally comparable utilities: a rigorous derivation. WIOR-Discussion Paper 390, Universität Karlsruhe
d'Aspremont C (1985) Axioms for social welfare orderings. In: Hurwicz L, Schmeidler D, Sonnenschein H (eds) Social goals and social organization: Essays in memory of Elisha Pazner. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–76
d'Aspremont C, Gevers L (1977) Equity and the informational basis of collective choice. Rev Econ Stud 44: 199–209
Fishburn PC, Marcus-Roberts HM, Roberts FS (1988) Unique finite difference measurement, SIAM J Discr Math 1: 334–354
Fishburn PC, Roberts FS (1989) Uniqueness in finite measurement. In: Roberts FS (ed) Applications of combinatorics and graph theory to the biological and social sciences. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 103–137
Gevers L (1979) On interpersonal comparability and social welfare orderings. Econometrica 47: 75–89
Hammond PJ (1979) Equity in two person situations: some consequences. Econometrica 47: 1127–1136
Krantz D, Luce RD, Suppes P, Tversky A (1971) Foundations of measurement, vol I. Academic Press, New York
Maskin E (1978) A theorem on utilitarianism. Rev Econ Stud 45: 93–96
Roberts FS (1979) Measurement theory with applications to decisionmaking, utility, and the social sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Roberts K (1980) Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory. Rev Econ Stud 47: 421–439
Sen AK (1974) Informational bases of alternative welfare approaches: aggregation and income distribution. J Publ Econ 3: 387–403
Sen AK (1977) On weights and measures: informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica 45: 1539–1572
Sen AK (1986) Social choice theory. In: Arrow KJ, Intriligator MD (eds) Handbook of mathematical economics, vol III. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1073–1181
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted to Charles Blackorby, David Donaldson, Michel Le Breton, and John Weymark for very helpful discussions and comments on an earlier version of the paper. The suggestions of two anonymous referees enabled me to improve the paper considerably.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bossert, W. On intra- and interpersonal utility comparisons. Soc Choice Welfare 8, 207–219 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177659
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177659