The Demand Theory of the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference Richard Kihlstrom; Andreu Mas-Colell; Hugo Sonnenschein Econometrica,

Vol. 44, No. 5. (Sep., 1976), pp. 971-978.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28197609%2944%3A5%3C971%3ATDTOTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I Econometrica is currently published by The Econometric Society.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/econosoc.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org Wed Oct 24 13:13:25 2007

Econornetrica, Vol. 44, No. 5 (September. 1976)

THE DEMAND THEORY O F THE WEAK AXIOM O F REVEALED PREFERENCE

BY RICHARD KIHLSTROM, ANDREU MAS-COLELL, AND HUGO SONNENSCHEIN'

In this paper we provide a statement of the relationship between the weak axiom of revealed preference (WA) and the negative semidefiniteness of the matrix of substitution terms (NSD). As a corollary we determine the relation between WA and the strong axiom of revealed preference (SA). The latter is equivalent to NSD and the symmetry of the matrix of substitution terms. The former, WA, implies NSD but is not implied by NSD. Also, WA is implied by the condition that the matrix of substitution terms is negative definite (ND), but it does not imply ND. Application of these results yield an infinity of demand functions which satisfy WA but not SA.

INTRODUCTION

THEPURPOSE OF THIS PAPER is to provide a final step in the solution to a problem which has been central to the foundation of consumer demand theory since Samuelson's introduction of the weak axiom o f revealed preference in 1938 [ll]. A characterization, via classical restrictions, of the set of demand functions which satisfy the weak axiom is obtained. Demand functions have as their arguments an 1-dimensianal price vector p and a wealth variable w.' They assign to each p and w an 1-dimensional vector of commodity amounts, called a demand. We assume that demands are nonnegative and satisfy the balance condition that for each (p, w), the inner product of p with the demand at (p, w) is w. In addition, we will assume that demand functions are homogeneous of degree zero in (p, w). It is a classical result (Johnson [9] and Slutsky [15]), that demand fu,nctions which are generated by maximizing a quasiconcave (smooth) utility function satisfy the conditions of negative semidefiniteness (NSD) and symmetry (S) of a matrix of compensated price derivatives (substitution term^).^ The converse theorem is also classical in background (Antonelli [I]) and both are central to the demand theory presented in Samuelson's Foundations o f Economic Analysis [12].4 In 1938 Samuelson [ l l ] proposed a new foundation for the theory of consumer behavior. He defined the direct revealed preference relation R by xRy if x is the demand in a situation where y # x can be afforded, and took as his central axiom the asymmetry of R (called the weak axiom o f revealed preference). Samuelson left unanswered the question of whether his weak axiom was equivalent to the utility hypothesis ; i.e., the assumption that demand is generated by maximizing a quasiconcave utility function. His efforts yielded the conclusion that the weak axiom
Most of the results in this paper were obtained in the summer of 1973 at a workshop at Amherst, Massachusetts. The authors wish to thank the Mathematics Social Science Board and the National Science Foundation for their support. Static Demand Theory by D. Katzner [lo] provides an excellent introduction to demand theory. Throughout this paper the terms semidefiniteness and definiteness do not presume symmetry. Surveys of this literature are found in references [7] and [lo].

972

R . KIHLSTROM, A. MAS-COLELL, A N D H . SONNENSCHEIN

implies NSD; however, he seemed aware that S was probably not implied by his axiom, except for the special case of two commodities. The question of a possible equivalence between the weak axiom and the utility hypothesis remained unanswered for over twenty years before an example due to Gale [4] demonstrated that there exists a demand function satisfying the weak axiom which cannot be generated by utility-maximizing behavior. In the meantime f revealed Houthakker [6]showed that the acyclicity of R (called the strong axiom o preference) is equivalent to the utility hypothesis. Still, the question of the precise relationship between the weak axiom and the strong axiom (or equivalently the utility hypothesis) has remained open. Because of Gale's example they are not equivalent. Uzawa [17, p. 1331 introduced a condition under which they are equivalent; however, it is marred by the fact that it looks very much like the strong axiom itself. In this paper we provide a definitive statement of the relationship between the weak axiom and NSD. As a corollary we determine the relationship between the weak and strong axioms. The strong axiom is equivalent to NSD and S. The weak axiom implies NSD but is not implied by NSD; however, the weak axiom is implied by the condition that the matrix of substitution terms is negative definite (ND). Application of these results yields an infinity of Gale-type examples and proves that an analog of N D for excess demand functions, since it implies the weak axiom, is sufficient for the stability of competitive equilibrium.
THE THEORY

Let V = P x (0, co) be an open convex cone of positive vectors in R1+'. The first 1 coordinates of points in V are interpreted as price variables and the remaining coordinates as an income variable. For this reason a generic element of V is denoted by (p, w) where p E P and w > 0. A demand function h: V -+ R' is a continuously differentiable function which satisfies the following: (i) for all @, W) E V, h(p, w) 3 0 ; (ii) for all (p, w) E V, for all A > 0, h(p, w) = h(Ap, Aw) (homogeneity) ; (iil) for all (p, w) E V, p . h(p, w) = w (balance). ~ A(h)(p, w) will denote the 1 x 1 Given a demand function h and (p, w ) V, matrix with generic entry

It follows from (ii) and (iii) that plA(h)(p,w)p = 0 for every (p, w) E V. Define also the relation R by xRy if x = h(px,wx), x # y, and px. y Q wx. Some conditions which may be satisfied by a demand function are now stated. The first three involve conditions on derivatives, while the remaining three are finitistic.
CONDITION 1 (NSD) : For every (p, w) E V, A(h)(p, w) is negative semidefinite on T, = {v E R' : p . z i = 0) ; i.e., for all v E Tp, vlA(h)(p,w)v 6 0.

WEAK AXIOM OF REVEALED PREFERENCE

973

CONDITION 2 (ND): For every (p, w) E V, A(h)(p,w) is negative definite on T,; i.e., for all v E R1,v # 0, vlA(h)(p, w)v < 0.5 CONDITION 3 (S) : For every (p, w) E V, A(h)(p,w) is a symmetric matrix.

CONDITION 4 ( W W A ): For every @, 8), @, G) E V, if h(p, 8) # h(p, G) and

p . h(p, G) < 8, then p . h@,G) > w . ~

CONDITION 5 ( W A ): R is asymmetric or, equivalently, for every @, 8),@, G)E V, if h(p, 8) # h@, G) and p . (p, G) 6 8, then p . h(p, 8) > G (weak axiom).
CONDITION 6 ( S A ): R is acyclic (strong axiom).

Obviously, N D implies NSD and W A implies W W A . We will show that W W A implies NSD (compare with Samuelson : W A implies NSD [12, p. 11I]), N D implies W A , and NSD implies W W A . In addition, we will show that W W A does not imply W A .

LEMMA 1 : Assume that h is a demand function, (pa,wo)E V, v E R1, pa v E P, and xo = h(po,wo).Dejne p(t) = pa tv, and ,for ail vectors p E P dejne E(xo,p) = h(p,p . xo). Then

and (2) lim l(llt2)W - A t ) ) . (5(x0, P O ) - 5(x", p(t))) t+O

1
j

aij(h)(p0, w0)vi~jl = 0.

If, in addition, h satisjes W W A , then

PROOF : Statement (1) follows from a chain rule differentiation and the definition of aij(h)W, wo). A variant of (2) is implicit in [lo, p. 1101, and is attributed to L. Hurwicz. It is established as follows. Since each 5' is continuously differentiable and Ilp(t) - pa 11 = t llv 11,

In view of the fact that p8A(h)(p,w ) = 0 and A(h)(p, w)p = 0 for all (p, w) E V, NSD is equivalent to "A(h)(p,w ) is negative semidefinite on R'" and ND is equivalent to "u'A(h)(p,w)v < 0 for all v # 0, v/llul/ # p/llplln. The latter is the definition of ND given in an earlier version of the paper; however, T. Rader pointed out to us that it leads to some difficulties in exposition which are avoided by the present formulation. 6The notation WWA is used to remind the reader that this condition is weaker than the weak axiom.

974

R. KIHLSTROM, A. MAS-COLELL, AND H. SONNENSCHEIN

Since tv, = pi(t) - pp, multiplying by Ilvll(pi(t)- pp)/t yields

i=l

and summing over i together with ( 1 ) complete the proof of (2). Statement (3)combines p(t). (<(xO, pO)- l ( x O p(t))) , = 0 from the definition of 5 Q.E.D. and pO. (4(x0, pO)- <(xO, p(t))) 6 0 from WWA. The following theorem is an immediate consequence of (2)and (3).

THEOREM 1 : If h is a demand function which satisfies W W A , then h satisfies NSD. LEMMA 2 : If h is a demand function which does not satisfy W A , then there exist such that for all t between zero and one, vectors pOE P and 0 # v E Tpo
where p(t) = pO

+ tv.

PROOF: We will consider three cases which together exhaust the ways in which WA can be violated. If p . h(@, 8 ) = W and p". h@, W ) < 8, let so be the smallest positive s such that p. l(h(@, 8), p + s(@- p)) = 8 . So defined, f ' is positive. If pO = p so(@ - p), then v # 0 and we let xO = 4(h(p,8),pa), and v is the projection of p - pO on Tpo, p(t) = pO + tv. Since p0 . h(p, W ) . :pO. xO,the continuity of h and the definition of so imply that pO.( t ( x OpO) , - 4(x0,p(t)))> 0. This inequality establishes the result. I f p . h @ , 8 ) < W and p . h ( p , W ) < % , let ~ E H {=x : p . x = W a n d p . x = 8 } . The continuity of h guarantees that there exists s E (0, I ) , such that x' = <(i, sp ( 1 - s)p)E H . Define p' = sp ( 1 - s)@ and w' = p' . x'. Since p . x' = W and p' . h(F, 3) < w', the previous case applies. If p . h@, G) = W and p . h(p, W ) = G (h@,G) # h(p, W)), then x(s) = <(h@,G), sp ( 1 - s)p) = <(h(p, W ) , sp ( 1 - s)p). If X ( S ) E H (defined above) for all s E (0, 1 ) define xO = X, pO = p, and v = p - pO.If x(3)$ H for some 3 E ( 0 , l )define j? = 3(p) + ( 1 - $)p, and i9 = j? . x(3). By the definition of x(3), f i . h(p, 8 ) = j? . h(p, W ) = 6. Also, since x(3) # H , either p . x(3) < 8 or p . x(3) < 3 ; in either Q.E.D. event, the first case applies.

The following theorem is an immediate consequence of (2) and Lemma 2. (Assume WA is not satisfied and prove that N D is violated.)

THEOREM 2 : I f . h is a demand function which satisfies N D , then h satisfies WA.'

' M. K. Richter pointed out to us in private correspondence that the proof of Theorem 2 can be streamlined and the requirement that h be continuously differentiable replaced by differentiable. However, since (2) and Lemma 2 are needed for other purposes, the current treatment is more economical.

WEAK AXIOM OF REVEALED PREFERENCE

975

Theorems 1 and 2 combine to yield the result that a demand function h satisfies N D if and only if there exists a neighborhood of h such that all demand functions in that neighborhood satisfy WA.' Thus, N D is an open infinitesimal analog of WA. This fact makes it very easy to exhibit demand functions which satisfy WA but cannot be generated by utility maximization. To achieve this take any demand function (for at least three commodities) which satisfy N D and S. All demand functions sufficiently close to h (and equal to h outside a compact set of prices) will satisfy N D but most will not satisfy S. Hence, they must satisfy WA but cannot come from utility rnaximi~ation.~ Applying Theorem 2 in an approximation argument yields the following theorem which, together with Theorem 1,establishes the equivalence of NSD and WWA.
3 : If the demand function h satisfies NSD, then it satisfies W WA. THEOREM

PROOF: Assume that h satisfies NSD but that WWA is violated. Then for some 6), (p, 3 ) E V we have h(p, 6 ) # h(p, %), a . h(p, W ) < G, and p . he, 6 ) 6 $3. Replacing $3 by w' > %, close enough to %, we have h@, 6) # h(p, %), p . h(p, w') < 6 , and p . h@, 6 ) < w'. Therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume h@, %) # h@, W), p h(p, W ) < %, and p . h@, 6 ) < %, Let V' c V be an open convex cone such that (p, 6), (p, %) E V' and any limit point of V' different from 0 is contained in V. Let f :Rf\{O) -+ R be a continuously differentiable function which is homogeneous of degree one and such that for every p E R1\{O), D' f (p), the Hessian matrix o f f at p, satisfies the condition V'D' f (p)v < Ofor every v G R', v # 0, vlllvll # pIIIpII.(Forexample, letf (p) = - llpll.) For sufficientlysmall i j > 0, if g < i j the function h, : V' + R' given by h,(p, w) = h(p, w - gf (p)) gDf (p) is well defined. It is immediately seen to be a demand function ; i.e., to satisfy (i), (ii), and (iii). Moreover,
@?

and so h, satisfies N D and, by Theorem 2, also WA. However, for g sufficiently ) < 6 and p . h,@, 6 ) < 3, a contradiction. small, p . h,(p, W Q.E.D. If h satisfies S, then it is known that h can be locally integrated.'' Using this fact Hurwicz and Uzawa [8] show that if h satisfies S in addition to NSD then h must satisfy WA. Since we have already demonstrated that WWA is equivalent to NSD, it follows that given S the conditions WWA, NSD, and WA are all equivalent. Since we are not concerned with integrability theory we will not pursue the above line; however, we will demonstrate by example that, in the absence of S, WA and WWA are not equivalent. In particular, the example shows
Because of the openness of the domain, neighborhoods should be defined by the Whitney topology. The idea of perturbing a demand function which satisfies ND and S to obtain a demand function which satisfies WA but does not come from utility maximization was employed by Gale [4] (and is attributed by him to Samuelson). Since the question of the equivalence of the weak axiom and the utility hypothesis was classically carried out in the context of differentiable demand functions, we also note that the nondifferentiabhity (on a set of measure zero) of the Gale example is inessential. l o Also, if there are only two commodities, then h can be locally integrated.

976

R. KIHLSTROM, A. MAS-COLELL, AND H.

SONNENSCHEIN

that WWA cannot be replaced by WA in Theorem 3, and thus the theorem cannot be strengthened. EXAMPLE : Let h :(0,
+ R3 be

defined by

The function h is not positive valued, but this is inessential for our purpose. It satisfies NSD (hence, WWA) since for every (p, w) E V,A(h)(p,w) is skew-symmetric, and this implies vlA(lz)(p,w)v = 0 for every v E R'. ~ o w k v e r h , does not satisfy WA: consider (p, @) = (1,1,1,1) and (p, E) = (2, 1,1,2). We conclude with a discussion of the corresponding theory for excess demand functions. An excess demand function f : P + R' is a continuously differentiable function which is positive homogeneous of degree zero ( f ( A p ) = f ( p ) for all p E P and A > 0 ) and satisfies the balance condition that p . f Cp) = 0 for all p E P. Note that if 12: V -+ R' is a demand function and w is a positive vector in R', then h(p, p . o)- o defines an excess demand function. The conditions analogous to N D and WA (for brevity we shall not be concerned here with NSD and WWA) are the following : (ND') for every p E P, Df ( p ) is a negative definite matrix on T P n { v ~ R i : v . f ( p ) = O i.e., ) , if v # O , v . f ( p ) = O , v T p , then v ' D f ( p ) u < 0 ; 1 2 (WAe)for every p, p E P, iff @) # f @) and p .f (p) 6 0, then p . f @) > 0 , The following result is an analog of Theorem 2 and is proved in a similar way.
4 : I f f is an excess demand function which satisfies NDe, then f satisjes THEOREM WAe.

As an application, let f be an excess demand function and consider the differential equation p = f(p). This defines a tgtonnement price dynamics. Arrow -and Hurwicz [3] have shown that iff satisfies WAe, then f is globally stable. Combining this fact with Theorem 4 yields the result that i f f satisfies NDe and f (j) = 0 for some p, then p is a globally stable equilibrium.13 This strengthens a result proved by Arrow and Hurwicz [2, Theorem 41 since our hypothesis requires negative definiteness of Df (p) only on a proper subset of p.14
The function h can be altered to have position values on an arbitrary compact subset of its domain. We do not know if there exists a function with the properties of h defined on (0, wI4. l 2 Since p'Df (p) = -f(p) and Df (p)p = 0 for all p, NDe is equivalent to "if cf (p) = 0, ti # 0, t i l l 1oll # plllpll, then o'Df(p)v < 0". l 3 Let g:R" 4 Rn be a continuously differentiable function with g(0) = 0. Hartman and Olech [5, p. 5481 have established that the following condition is sufficient for the asymptotic stability of , t = g(x) at x = 0 : for all 0 # v E R", x E R", if v . g(x) = 0, then v'Dg(x)v < 0. Notice the striking similarity between this condition and NDe. This suggests that the weak axiom WAe is the finitistic equivalent of the Hartman-Olech condition. l 4 Our analysis may shed some light on the question of whether every economy with sufficiently similar individuals will satisfy WA' and thus generate a globally stable excess demand function. Since arbitrarily small perturbation of a given excess demand function which satisfies WA' cannot be guaranteed to satisfy WAe, there is some problem in obtaining an affirmative answer to the question. However, the fact that the individual excess demand functions which cause trouble are the ones with negative semidefinite but not negative definite Hessians (subject to constraint) suggests that the "bad cases" lie in a small closed set with empty interior (in the Whitney topology).

''

WEAK AXIOM OF REVEALED PREFERENCE A RELATED CONJECTURE

977

(with Wayne Shafer) This concerns the theory of the "nontransitive consumer". Let W be a relatio,n on R (the closed positive orthant of R'), T be defined by xWy and not yWx, W(x) = {x' E R :x' Wx), W -'(x) = {x' E R : x Wx'). The following three axioms provide the foundation for the theory of the nontransitive consumer: AXIOM 1 : W is strongly connected. AXIOM2: For all x, y, z E R, X,y E W(Z), and x # y imply tx O<t<l. AXIOM 3 : For all x, W(x) and W-'(x) are closed. It is known (Sonnenschein [16] and Shafer [14]) that under these axioms compact competitive budgets contain unique W-maximal elements and that demand functions exist and are continuous. It is also trivial to prove that nontransitive consumer demand functions satisfy WA. W. Shafer [14] has also shown that the nontransitive consumer demand functions need not satisfy S : consider In x, - x;*y$ - In y, and define xWy by k(x, y) > 0. The k(x, y) = y;*x$ demand function for the first two commodities generated by W is

+ (1 - t)yTz,

As we have stated, (4) NSD and S o Strong Axiom o Utility Hypothesis

( .

Since we have just shown ND, NSD o Weak Axiom," and since it is easily established, Weak Axiom Nontransitive Consumer, the following conjecture is natural. CONJECTURE: Given a demand function h satisfying WA, there exists a nontransitive consumer who generates h: i.e.,
(5)

ND, NSD o Weak Axiom o Nontransitive Consumer,

a counterpart of (4). University o f Illinois at Urbana,

University o f California at Berkeley,
and
Northwestern University

Manuscript received June, 1974.

l5

This is an informal version of ND

* Weak Axiom * NSD.

978

R. KIHLSTROM, A. MAS-COLELL, A N D H. SONNENSCHEIN

REFERENCES

[I] ANTONELLI, G. B.: "Sulla Teoria Matematica della Economia Politica," 1886. Reprinted in Giornale degli Economisti e Annuli di Economia, Nuova Serie, 10 (1951), 233-263. English translation in Preferences, Utility and Demand, ed. by J. S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. K. Richter, and H. F. Sonnenschein. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. [2] ARROW, K. J., AND L. HURWICZ: "The Stability of Competitive Equilibrium, I," Econometrica, 26 (1958), 522-552. . "Some Remarks on the Equilibrium of Economic Systems," Econometrica; 28 (1960), [31 . 64M46. [4] GALE, D.: "A Note on Revealed Preference," Economica, 27 (1960), 348-354. [S] HARTMAN, P.: Ordinary Differential Equations. New York: Wiley, 1964. [ 6 ]HOUTHAKKER, H. S.: "Revealed Preference and the Utility Function," Economica, 17 (1950), 159-174. [T HURWICZ, L.: "On the Problem of Integrability of Demand Functions," in Preferences, Utility and Demand, ed. by J. S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. K. Richter, and H. F. Sonnenschein. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. [8] H u ~ w i c z ,L., AND H. UZAWA: "On the Integrability of Demand Functions," in Preferences, Utility and Demand, ed. by J. S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. K. Richter, and H. F. Sonnenschein. New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. [9] JOHNSON, W. E.: "The Pure Theory of Utility Curves," Economic Journal. 23 (19 13). 483-5 13. Reprinted in Precursors in Mathematical Economics: An Anthology, ed. by William J. Baumol and Stephen M. Goldfeld. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1968. [lo] KATZNER, D. W.: Static Demand Theory. New York: MacMillan, 1970. [ l l ] SAMUELSON, P. A,: "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer Behavior," Economica, 5 (1938), 61-71. [I21 . . Foundations of Economic ~ n a i ~ s iCambridge, s. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947. [13] . . "The Problem of Integrability in Utility Theory," Economica, 17 (1950), 355--385. [14] SHAFER, W. : "The Nontransitive Consumer," Econometrica, 42 (1974). 91 3-920. [IS] SLUTSKY, E.: "Sulla Teoria del Bilancio del Consumatore," Giornale degli Economisti e ~ i u i s t a di Statistica, 51 (19r5). 1-26. English translation. "On the Theory of the Budget of the Consumer," in Readings in Price Theory, ed. by G . J. Stigler and K. E. Boulding. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1952. [16] SONNENSCHEIN, H. F.: "Demand Theory Without Transitive Preferences, With Applications to the Theory of Competitive Equilibrium," in Preferences, Utility and Demand Theory, ed. by J . S. Chipman, L. Hunvicz, M. K. Richter, and H. F. Sonnenschein. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. [I71 UZAWA, H.: "Preference and Rational Choice in the Theory of Consumption," in Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, ed. by K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1960.

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -

You have printed the following article: The Demand Theory of the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference Richard Kihlstrom; Andreu Mas-Colell; Hugo Sonnenschein Econometrica, Vol. 44, No. 5. (Sep., 1976), pp. 971-978.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28197609%2944%3A5%3C971%3ATDTOTW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]
9

A Note on Revealed Preference David Gale Economica, New Series, Vol. 27, No. 108. (Nov., 1960), pp. 348-354.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28196011%292%3A27%3A108%3C348%3AANORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

References
2

On the Stability of the Competitive Equilibrium, I Kenneth J. Arrow; Leonid Hurwicz Econometrica, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Oct., 1958), pp. 522-552.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28195810%2926%3A4%3C522%3AOTSOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
3

Some Remarks on the Equilibria of Economic Systems Kenneth J. Arrow; Leonid Hurwicz Econometrica, Vol. 28, No. 3. (Jul., 1960), pp. 640-646.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28196007%2928%3A3%3C640%3ASROTEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -

A Note on Revealed Preference David Gale Economica, New Series, Vol. 27, No. 108. (Nov., 1960), pp. 348-354.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28196011%292%3A27%3A108%3C348%3AANORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
6

Revealed Preference and the Utility Function H. S. Houthakker Economica, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 66. (May, 1950), pp. 159-174.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28195005%292%3A17%3A66%3C159%3ARPATUF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J
9

The Pure Theory of Utility Curves W. E. Johnson The Economic Journal, Vol. 23, No. 92. (Dec., 1913), pp. 483-513.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%28191312%2923%3A92%3C483%3ATPTOUC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D
11

A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour P. A. Samuelson Economica, New Series, Vol. 5, No. 17. (Feb., 1938), pp. 61-71.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28193802%292%3A5%3A17%3C61%3AANOTPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
13

The Problem of Integrability in Utility Theory Paul A. Samuelson Economica, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 68. (Nov., 1950), pp. 355-385.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28195011%292%3A17%3A68%3C355%3ATPOIIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
14

The Nontransitive Consumer Wayne J. Shafer Econometrica, Vol. 42, No. 5. (Sep., 1974), pp. 913-919.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28197409%2942%3A5%3C913%3ATNC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.