IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

A measure of rationality and welfare

Author Info

Listed author(s):

Abstract

Evidence showing that individual behavior often deviates from the classical principle of preference maximization has raised at least two important questions: (i) How serious are the deviations? and (ii) What is the best way to analyse choice behavior in order to extract information for the purpose of welfare analysis? This paper addresses these questions by proposing a new way to identify the preference relation which is closest, in terms of welfare loss, to the revealed choice.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1220.pdf
File Function: Whole Paper
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra in its series Economics Working Papers with number 1220.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2010
Date of revision: Oct 2014
Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1220
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.econ.upf.edu/

Keywords: Rationality; Individual Welfare; Revealed Preference.;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
  • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
  • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. 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.
  2. Halevy, Yoram & Persitz, Dotan & Zrill, Lanny, 2012. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Microeconomics.ca working papers yoram_halevy-2012-20, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 28 Aug 2015.
  3. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non-Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, 04.
  4. Varian, Hal R., 1990. "Goodness-of-fit in optimizing models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 125-140.
  5. Green, Jerry & Hojman, Daniel, 2007. "Choice, Rationality and Welfare Measurement," Working Paper Series rwp07-054, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  6. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2007. "Beyond Revealed Preference Choice Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," Discussion Papers 07-031, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  7. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
  8. Howe, Eric C, 1991. "A More Powerful Method for Triangularizing Input-Output Matrices: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 521-523, March.
  9. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
  10. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
  11. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.
  12. Michael Brusco & Hans-Friedrich Köhn & Stephanie Stahl, 2008. "Heuristic Implementation of Dynamic Programming for Matrix Permutation Problems in Combinatorial Data Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 503-522, September.
  13. Timothy K. M. Beatty & Ian A. Crawford, 2011. "How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2782-2795, October.
  14. Efe A. Ok & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2015. "Revealed (P)Reference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 299-321, January.
  15. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
  16. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester & Rosa Ferrer, 2011. "On the Justice of Decision Rules," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 1-16.
  17. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, 09.
  18. Martin Grötschel & Michael Jünger & Gerhard Reinelt, 1984. "A Cutting Plane Algorithm for the Linear Ordering Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 1195-1220, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

as
in new window


Cited by:

  1. Katherine Baldiga & Jerry Green, 2013. "Assent-maximizing social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 439-460, February.
  2. Dalton, Patricio S. & Ghosal, Sayantan, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Datas," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-86, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
  3. Abi Adams, 2015. "Mutually consistent revealed preference bounds," IFS Working Papers W15/20, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  4. Tugce Cuhadaroglu, 2015. "Choosing on Influence," Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics 201504, Department of Economics, University of St. Andrews.
  5. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Daisuke Nakajima & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2012. "Revealed Attention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2183-2205, August.
  6. Horan, Sean & Sprumont, Yves, 2016. "Welfare criteria from choice: An axiomatic analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 56-70.
  7. Apesteguia, Jose & Ballester, Miguel A., 2013. "Choice by sequential procedures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 90-99.
  8. Miguel Costa-Gomes & Carlos Cueva & Georgios Gerasimou & Matus Tejiscak, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics 201416, Department of Economics, University of St. Andrews, revised 26 Dec 2016.
  9. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Note on goodness-of-fit measures for the revealed preference test: The computational complexity of the minimum cost index," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2455-2461.
  10. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Testing for Rationality with Consumption Data: Demographics and Heterogeneity," Working Papers 2011-11, Brown University, Department of Economics.
  11. repec:kap:theord:v:83:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9590-3 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Sophie Bade, 2016. "Pareto-optimal matching allocation mechanisms for boundedly rational agents," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 501-510, October.
  13. Garth Heutel, 2017. "Prospect Theory and Energy Efficiency," NBER Working Papers 23692, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Halevy, Yoram & Persitz, Dotan & Zrill, Lanny, 2012. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Microeconomics.ca working papers yoram_halevy-2012-20, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 28 Aug 2015.
  15. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Access and download statistics

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.