Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T08:41:31.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mathematical Fitness in the Evolution of the Utility Concept from Bentham to Jevons to Marshall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Tom Warke
Tom Warke
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper seeks an answer to the following question: By what process did the utility concept in economics evolve from its Benthamite to its modern form? Jeremy Bentham applied his principle of utility to ethical, legal, and constitutional issues, and only after more than a century of adaptation did it become the dominant explanation for consumer choice. The paper identifies fitness for mathematical analysis as the underlying principle of selection for this evolutionary success, exemplified in particular by the mutations of utility between Bentham and W. S. Jevons, and between Jevons and Alfred Marshall.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 5 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2000

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: 171–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J.ca. 1773. In Mary P. Mack, Jeremy Bentham: An Odyssey of Ideas. London: Heineman, 1962.Google Scholar
Bentham, J.ca. 1781. In Elie Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, trans. Morris, M.. London: Faber and Faber, 1972.Google Scholar
Bentham, J.ca. 1782. In Elie Halévy, La Jeunesse de Bentham. Paris: Felic Alcan, 1901.Google Scholar
Bentham, J.ca. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, edited by Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J.ca. 1822. Codification Proposal. In Stark, W., ed., Jeremy Bentham's Economic Writings, vol. 3. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954.Google Scholar
Black, R.D.C. 1972. “Jevons, Bentham and De Morgan.” Economica 39: 119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R.D.C., ed. 1973–1977. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, vols. II–IV. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R.D.C. and Könekamp, R., eds. 1973. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, vol. I. London: MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellickson, B. 1993. Competitive Equilibrium. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guillebaud, C.W. 1961. Marshall's Principles of Economics: Notes. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Guillebaud, C.W. 1970. “Some Personal Reminiscences of Alfred Marshall.” History of Political Economy 1: 1–8.Google Scholar
Hare, R.M. 1982. “Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism.” In Sen, A. and Williams, B., eds., Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, N. 1996. “Equilibrium and Time: Marshall's Dilemma.” Journal of Economic Methodology 3: 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, W.S. 1871. The Theory of Political Economy. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Jevons, W.S. 1879. The Theory of Political Economy. London: Penguin Books, 1970.Google Scholar
Jevons, W.S. 1887. The Principles of Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
La Nauze, J.A. 1953. “The Conception of Jevons's Utility Theory.” Economica 20: 356–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of Economics, 8th Edn.London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Moore, G.E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: The University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Petrella, F. 1977. “Benthamism and the Demise of Classical Economic Ordnungspolitik.” History of Political Economy 9: 215–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, A.C. 1903. “Some Remarks on Utility.” Economic Journal 13: 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plamenatz, J. 1972. In Elie Halévy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, trans. Morris, M.. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Robertson, R.M. 1951. “Jevons and his Precursors.” Econometrica 19: 229–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, L. 1978. The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy, 2nd Edn.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1950. “The Development of Utility Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 58: 307–27, 373–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warke, T. W. Forthcoming. “Multi-Dimensional Utility and the Index Number Problem: Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill and Qualitative Hedonism.” Utilitas.Google Scholar
White, M.V. 1990. “Invention in the Face of Necessity: Marshallian Rhetoric and the Giffen Good(s).” Economic Record 66: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, Lofti. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8: 338–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar