IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v80y2025i4d10.1007_s00199-025-01653-5.html

The generality of the strong axiom

Author

Listed:
  • Cristián Ugarte

    (Charles River Associates)

Abstract

Economic research usually endows consumers with a strictly concave utility function. When choices are rationalizable, this assumption can be tested by the strong axiom of revealed preferences, SARP, as if they fail such a test, the convexity of the utility is not strict. We extend this test to non-rationalizable choices using partial efficiency, the most popular method to analyze such choices. Under partial efficiency, a strictly concave utility cannot be tested. Hence, the existence of a strictly concave utility is falsified if, and only if, choices are rationalizable but fail SARP, which we do not observe in laboratory data. From an empirical standpoint, our results suggest that assuming a strictly concave utility does not carry a cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristián Ugarte, 2025. "The generality of the strong axiom," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 80(4), pages 965-988, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:80:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s00199-025-01653-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-025-01653-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-025-01653-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-025-01653-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip J. Reny, 2015. "A Characterization of Rationalizable Consumer Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 175-192, January.
    2. Lanny Zrill, 2024. "(Non-)Parametric Recoverability of Preferences and Choice Prediction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(1), pages 217-229, January.
    3. Douglas M. Gale & Shachar Kariv & Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman, 2007. "Revealing Preferences Graphically: An Old Method Gets a New Tool Kit," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 153-158, May.
    4. Federico Echenique & Sangmok Lee & Matthew Shum, 2011. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1201-1223.
    5. Varian, Hal R., 1990. "Goodness-of-fit in optimizing models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 125-140.
    6. Hu, Gaoji & Li, Jiangtao & Quah, John K.-H. & Tang, Rui, 0. "Coarse revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    7. Raymond Fisman & Shachar Kariv & Daniel Markovits, 2007. "Individual Preferences for Giving," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1858-1876, December.
    8. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    9. Peter Lee & Kam-Chau Wong, 2005. "Revealed preference and differentiable demand," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(4), pages 855-870, June.
    10. Dziewulski, Paweł & Lanier, Joshua & Quah, John K.-H., 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: A survey," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    11. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    14. Matzkin, Rosa L. & Richter, Marcel K., 1991. "Testing strictly concave rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 287-303, April.
    15. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    16. Afriat, S N, 1973. "On a System of Inequalities in Demand Analysis: An Extension of the Classical Method," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(2), pages 460-472, June.
    17. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    18. Shachar Kariv & Dan Silverman, 2013. "An Old Measure of Decision-Making Quality Sheds New Light on Paternalism," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 169(1), pages 29-44, March.
    19. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dziewulski, Paweł & Lanier, Joshua & Quah, John K.-H., 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: A survey," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    3. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2025. "A revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    4. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Relaxed Optimization: e-Rationalizability and the FOC-Departure Index in Consumer Theory," Working Papers 2020-07, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    5. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John K.-H. Quah, 2026. "Ever since Allais," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 134(6), pages 1846-1889.
    7. Pawel Dziewulski, 2018. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency," Economics Series Working Papers 848, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Victor H. Aguiar & Roberto Serrano, 2018. "Classifying bounded rationality in limited data sets: a Slutsky matrix approach," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 389-421, November.
    9. Mingshi Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Shu Wang & Songfa Zhong & Yanju Zhou, 2025. "How General Are Measures of Choice Consistency? Evidence from Experimental and Scanner Data," Papers 2505.05275, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.
    10. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    11. Yujian Chen & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    12. Mir Adnan Mahmood & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Correcting for Random Budgets in Revealed Preference Experiments," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Khushboo Surana, 2022. "How different are we? Identifying the degree of revealed preference heterogeneity," Discussion Papers 22/09, Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Kariv, Shachar & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2023. "The development gap in economic rationality of future elites," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 866-878.
    15. Tipoe, Eileen, 2021. "Price inattention: A revealed preference characterisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Aguiar, Victor H. & Serrano, Roberto, 2017. "Slutsky matrix norms: The size, classification, and comparative statics of bounded rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 163-201.
    17. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    19. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia, 2024. "Simon’s bounded rationality," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 47(1), pages 327-346, June.
    20. Aguiar, Victor H. & Serrano, Roberto, 2021. "Cardinal revealed preference: Disentangling transitivity and consistent binary choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:spr:joecth:v:80:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s00199-025-01653-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.