Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:45:30.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooter and Rappoport on the Normative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

John B. Davis
John B. Davis
Affiliation:
Marquette University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent examination of the origins of ordinal utility theory in neoclassical economics, Robert D. Cooter and Peter Rappoport argue that the ordinalist revolution of the 1930s, after which most economists abandoned interpersonal utility comparisons as normative and unscientific, constituted neither unambiguous progress in economic science nor the abandonment of normative theorizing, as many economists and historians of economic thought have generally believed (Cooter and Rappoport, 1984). Rather, the widespread acceptance of ordinalism, with its focus on Pareto optimality, simply represented the emergence of a new neoclassical research agenda that, on the one hand, defined economics differently than had the material welfare theorists of the cardinal utility school and, on the other, adopted a positivist methodology in contrast to the less restrictive empiricism of the cardinalists.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 1990 , pp. 139 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ayer, Alfred J. 1952. Language, Truth and Logic, 2nd ed.New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard B. 1950. “The Emotive Theory of Ethics.” Philosophical Review 59:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Rappoport, Peter. 1984. “Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature 22:507–30.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Rappoport, Peter. 1985. “Reply to I. M. D. Little's Comment.” Journal of Economic Literature 23:1189–91.Google Scholar
Hennipman, Pieter. 1988. “A New Look at the Ordinalist Revolution: Comments on Cooter and Rappoport.” Journal of Economic Literature 26:80–85.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1941. “The Rehabilitation of Consumers' Surplus.” Review of Economic Studies 8:108–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1939. “Welfare Propositions and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Economic Journal 49:549–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, I. M. D. 1957. A Critique of Welfare Economics, 2nd ed.London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Little, I. M. D. 1985. “Robert Cooter and Peter Rappoport, ‘Were the Ordinalists Wrong About Welfare Economics?’ A Comment.” Journal of Economic Literature 23:1186–88.Google Scholar
Mishan, E. J. 1960. “A Survey of Welfare Economics, 1939–59.” Economic Journal 70:197–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappoport, Peter. 1988. “Reply to Professor Hennipman.” Journal of Economic Literature 26:86–91.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nd ed.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1938. “Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment.” Economic Journal 48:635–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1979. “Personal Utilities and Public Judgments: Or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics?” Economic Journal 89:537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya, and Williams, Bernard (editors). 1982. Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Charles L. 1937. “The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms.” Mind 46:10–31.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Charles L. 1938. “Persuasive Definitions.” Mind 47:331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, Charles L. 1945. Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Warnock, Mary. 1960. Ethics Since 1900. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar