English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

On the shoulders of giants: from Lange (1934) to Samuelson (1938) on the “unique” measure of utility