| Sumario: | This contribution discusses Samuelson's reply to Lange's paper (1934) on the unique measure of utility. It proposes an interpretation of the debate drawing on the theory of scales later introduced by Stevens in 1946. This shows that, contrary to an intuitive perception, their divergence on the possibility of a cardinal measure of utility was rooted less in mathematical than in cognitive arguments related to the way transitions between allocations are considered. Consequently, although Samuelson succeeded in giving appropriate conditions for cardinality, he based his own mistrust towards its plausibility on arguments later used in the framework of reference-dependent approaches.
|
|---|