IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v21y2007i2p215-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retrospectives: Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility

Author

Listed:
  • David Colander

Abstract

In this article, I discuss some earlier debates about the foundations of utility and its measurement, focusing on the contributions of Francis Y. Edgeworth (1845-1926), a famous British economist who was a leader in the development of a more mathematically structured economics in the late 1800s, and Irving Fisher (1867-1947), one of the first quantitative U.S. economists, best-known today for his work on the quantity theory and interest rate theory. Edgeworth argued that utility was directly measurable and that new developments in "physio-psychology" would make it possible to develop a "hedonimeter" that would allow economists to develop a firm physiological underpinning of utility. Fisher, while agreeing with Edgeworth that it was important to have a workable measure of utility, disagreed with Edgeworth about the possibility of doing so with a hedonimeter and, hence, of having any physiological underpinnings of utility. He argued that instead of searching for physiological underpinnings of utility, economists should instead rely upon backward induction from observed behavior to measured utility. Neither of these views about the possibility of utility measurement carried through, and attempts to measure utility were abandoned in the 1930s, when utility measurement and happiness considerations were determined to be outside the purview of economics. Both Edgeworth and Fisher knew that their approaches to utility measurement opened up a Pandora's box of problems; they opened that box, nonetheless, because they felt that theoretical economics had to be relevant to policy, and, to be relevant, it had to face the problems.

Suggested Citation

  • David Colander, 2007. "Retrospectives: Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 215-226, Spring.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:21:y:2007:i:2:p:215-226
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jep.21.2.215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.21.2.215
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George J. Stigler, 1950. "The Development of Utility Theory. II," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 373-373.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    3. Fisher, Irving, 1918. "Is "Utility" the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It is Used to Denote?," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 8, pages 335-337.
    4. Daniel T. Slesnick, 1998. "Empirical Approaches to the Measurement of Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 2108-2165, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Coello, Pablo, 2022. "Hot in Twitter: Assessing the emotional impacts of wildfires with sentiment analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Giancarlo Romano G, 2013. "Acerca de la condición normativa de la teoría de la decisión racional," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, December.
    3. Abdelkrim Araar & Paolo Verme, 2019. "Prices and Welfare," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-17423-1, June.
    4. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2010. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing: Cardinality, Neutrality and Additivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(272), pages 98-123, March.
    5. David Colander, 2018. "The Scope and Method of Applied Policy Economics," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(2), pages 132-146, October.
    6. Chris Hand, 2018. "Do the arts make you happy? A quantile regression approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 42(2), pages 271-286, May.
    7. Carol Graham, 2005. "The Economics of Happiness," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 6(3), pages 41-55, July.
    8. Yew‐Kwang Ng, 2008. "Happiness Studies: Ways to Improve Comparability and Some Public Policy Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 84(265), pages 253-266, June.
    9. Bichler, Shimshon & Nitzan, Jonathan, 2021. "The 1-2-3 Toolbox of Mainstream Economics: Promising Everything, Delivering Nothing," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue 98, pages 23-48.
    10. Axel v. Werder, 2011. "Corporate Governance and Stakeholder Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1345-1358, October.
    11. Turan Arslan, 2017. "A Weighted Euclidean Distance based TOPSIS Method for Modeling Public Subjective Judgments," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(03), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Senderski, Marcin, 2014. "Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility," MPRA Paper 67024, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Dimand, Robert W., 2023. "Irving Fisher, Ragnar Frisch and the Elusive Quest for Measurable Utility," SocArXiv vmzua, Center for Open Science.
    14. Ralph I. Williams & Torsten M. Pieper & Franz W. Kellermanns & Joseph H. Astrachan, 2019. "Family business goal formation: a literature review and discussion of alternative algorithms," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 329-349, September.
    15. Hamid Hasan, 2019. "Confidence in Subjective Evaluation of Human Well-Being in Sen’s Capabilities Perspective," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2009. "Should National Happiness be Maximized?," Chapters, in: Amitava Krishna Dutt & Benjamin Radcliff (ed.), Happiness, Economics and Politics, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. M. Ali Khan & Edward E. Schlee, 2016. "On Lionel McKenzie's 1957 intrusion into 20th‐century demand theory," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 589-636, May.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    4. Stephen Martin, 2019. "The Kaldor–Hicks Potential Compensation Principle and the Constant Marginal Utility of Income," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(3), pages 493-513, November.
    5. Bruno Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2010. "Happiness and public choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 557-573, September.
    6. David Colander, 2007. "Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0723, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    7. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2006. "Should We Maximize National Happiness?," IEW - Working Papers 306, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Marc Fleurbaey, 2009. "Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1075, December.
    9. Erik Angner, 2011. "Current Trends in Welfare Measurement," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Marc Fleurbaey, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay and the equivalence approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 121(1), pages 35-58.
    11. Edward L. Glaeser & Joshua D. Gottlieb & Oren Ziv, 2016. "Unhappy Cities," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(S2), pages 129-182.
    12. Senderski, Marcin, 2014. "Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility," MPRA Paper 67024, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2009. "Glück ? die ökonomische Analyse," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-11, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    14. Fluhrer, Svenja & Kraehnert, Kati, 2022. "Sitting in the same boat: Subjective well-being and social comparison after an extreme weather event," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Abel Brodeur, 2012. "Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans," Working Papers halshs-00664269, HAL.
    16. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    17. Claude Hillinger, 2002. "A General Theory of Price and Quantity Aggregation and Welfare Measurement," CESifo Working Paper Series 818, CESifo.
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 110-130.
    20. Gordon John Anderson & Teng Wah Leo, 2021. "On Extending Stochastic Dominance Comparisons to Ordinal Variables and Generalising Hammond Dominance," Working Papers tecipa-705, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:21:y:2007:i:2:p:215-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.