Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:18.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

That which is Desired, which Pleases, and which Satisfies: Utility According to Alfred Marshall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Rozenn Martinoia
Rozenn Martinoia
Affiliation:
P.H.A.R.E. Universit Paris1 Panthon-Sorbonne, Maison des Sciences Eocnomiques, 106112 Bd de l'Hpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the period of the marginal revolution in England, utility was traditionally defined in reference to either desire or pleasure. William Stanley Jevons, for example, referred to pleasure. According to Jevons, utility was actually identical with the addition made to a person's happiness, that is to say to the sum of the pleasure created and the pain prevented (1871, pp. 5354). Henry Sidgwick, Alfred Marshall's spiritual father and mother, criticized this Benthamist perspective (Sidgwick 1883, p. 63) and introduced another definition at Cambridge. By utility of material things, Sidgwick stated, we mean their capacity tosatisfy men's needs and desires (1883, p. 84, emphasis added). Marshall, for his part, repeatedly moved from one meaning to another. In the first edition of his Principles of Economics, the term utility alternatively designated desire or pleasure. Few commentators have noted this double meaning of utility (Homan 1933, p. 224; Stigler 1950, p. 384; Guillebaud 1961, pp. 23637; Aldrich 1996, p. 211). Only Arthur Cecil Pigou (1903) and Jacob Viner (1925, p. 64749) have actually brought out its theoretical implications. No explanation as to the prevalence of this duality or its status in Marshall's welfare economics seems to have been proposed. Such is the intention of this article.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 349 - 364
Copyright
Copyright The History of Economics Society 2003

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

Aldrich, J. 1996. The Course of Marshall's Theorizing about Demand. History of Political Economy 28 (2): 171217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. 1985. History of Modern Economic Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: The Athlone Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. 1834. Deontology. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1990. Jevons, Marshall and the Utilitarian Tradition. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 37 (1): 57. In J. C. Wood, ed., Alfred Marshall Critical Assessments, vol. VII. London: Croom Helm, 1996, pp. 30215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. 1925. Reminiscences. In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillain, 1925, pp. 6673.Google Scholar
Fry, G. K. 1976. The Marshallian School and the Role of the State. The Bulletin of Economic Research. In Wood, J. C., ed., Alfred Marshall Critical Assessments, Vol. IV. London: Croom Helm, 1982, pp. 287301.Google Scholar
Groenewegen, P. 1995. A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 18421924. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Guillebaud, C. V. 1942. The Evolution of Marshall's Principles of Economics. Economic Journal 52 (12): 33049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillebaud, C. V. 1961. Alfred Marshall Principles of Economics, Variorum edition, Vol. II. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economical Society.Google Scholar
Homan, P. T. 1933. Essai sur la pense conomique contemporaine des anglo-amricains. Paris: Sirey.Google Scholar
Jensen, H. E. 1990. Value Premises in the Economic Thought of Alfred Marshall. Economie Applique 43 (1): 1935.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1871. The Theory of Political Economy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., and Sarin, R.. 1997. Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 375405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1924. Alfred Marshall 19421824. Economic Journal 34 (09): 31172. In A. C. Pigou, ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan, 1925, pp. 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A. 1874. The Laws of Political Economy: What they Can Teach and What they Cannot Teach. Beehive. April 18. Reprinted in Economic Journal 73 (09 1963): 42326.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1876. Mr. Mill's Theory of Value. Fortnightly Review (April). In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan, 1925, pp. 11933.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1885. The Present Position of Economics. In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan, 1925, pp. 15274.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics. Second edition 1891; third edition 1895; fifth edition 1907; eighth edition 1920; re-edited in 1994. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1893. Speech to the Meeting of the British Economic Association. Economic Journal 3 (09): 38790.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1919. Industry and Trade, 4th edition. London: Macmillan, 1923.Google Scholar
Martinoia, R. 1999. La Theorie de l'utilit d'Alfred Marshall, au risque du plus grand bien-tre du plus grand nombre. Thse de doctorat, Universit Paris 1 Panthon-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1910. The Rationality of Economic Activities. Journal of Political Economy 18 (2): 97113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1935. Lectures Notes on Types of Economic Theory. New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, K. M. 1995. The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility in Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 2 (1): 91126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1903. Some Remarks on Utility. Economic Journal 13 (03): 5868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan, 1952.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C., ed. 1925. Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1953. Alfred Marshall and Current Thought. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, T. 1996. Utilitarian Premises and the Evolutionary Framework of Marshall's Economics. Utilitas 8 (1): 89108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1872. Pleasure and Desire. Contemporary Review 19 (04): 66272.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1874. The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan, 1901.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1883. The Principles of Political Economy. London: Macmillan, 1901.Google Scholar
Skidelsky, R. 1983. John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 1. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stigler, J. 1950. The Development of Utility Theory. Journal of Political Economy 58 (08, October): 30727, 37396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viner, J. 1925. The Utility Concept in Value Theory and its Critics. Journal of Political Economy 33 (08, 12): 36987, 63859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, J. K. 1996. The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall: Economist, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar