[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2404.04843.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Money Pumps and Bounded Rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Lanier
  • Matthew Polisson
  • John K. -H. Quah
Abstract
The standard criterion of rationality in economics is the maximization of a utility function that is stable across multiple observations of an agent's choice behavior. In this paper, we discuss two notions of the money pump that characterize two corresponding notions of utility-maximization. We explain the senses in which the amount of money that can be pumped from a consumer is a useful measure of the consumer's departure from utility-maximization.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Lanier & Matthew Polisson & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Money Pumps and Bounded Rationality," Papers 2404.04843, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.04843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.04843
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    2. Federico Echenique & Sangmok Lee & Matthew Shum, 2011. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1201-1223.
    3. Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2016. "Measuring Rationality with the Minimum Cost of Revealed Preference Violations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(3), pages 524-534, July.
    4. W. E. Diewert, 1973. "Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 419-425.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Konstantin von Beringe & Mark Whitmeyer, 2024. "The Perils of Overreaction," Papers 2405.08087, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Demuynck & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Computing revealed preference goodness-of-fit measures with integer programming," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(4), pages 1175-1195, November.
    2. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    3. Jan Heufer & Per Hjertstrand, 2015. "Homothetic Efficiency and Test Power: A Non-Parametric Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-064/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Pawel Dziewulski, 2018. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency," Economics Series Working Papers 848, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org.
    8. Georgios Gerasimou, 2021. "Towards Eliciting Weak or Incomplete Preferences in the Lab: A Model-Rich Approach," Papers 2111.14431, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    9. Avner Seror, 2022. "The Priced Survey Methodology," AMSE Working Papers 2224, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    10. Ian Crawford & Bram De Rock, 2014. "Empirical Revealed Preference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 503-524, August.
    11. Liang, Annie, 2019. "Inference of preference heterogeneity from choice data," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 275-311.
    12. Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2022. "Rationalizability, Cost-Rationalizability, and Afriat's Efficiency Index," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/754, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    13. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    14. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Relaxed Optimization: e-Rationalizability and the FOC-Departure Index in Consumer Theory," Working Papers 2020-07, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    15. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "Measuring rationality: percentages vs expenditures," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 265-277, September.
    16. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Note on the goodness-of-fit measure for GARP; NP-hardness of minimum cost index," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-18, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    17. Annie Liang, 2016. "Inference of Preference Heterogeneity from Choice Data," PIER Working Paper Archive 16-029, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 04 Oct 2016.
    18. Smeulders, Bart & Crama, Yves & Spieksma, Frits C.R., 2019. "Revealed preference theory: An algorithmic outlook," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 803-815.
    19. Kohei Shiozawa, 2015. "Note on goodness-of-fit measures for the revealed preference test: The computational complexity of the minimum cost index," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(4), pages 2455-2461.
    20. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Joshua Lanier, 2020. "Are Consumers Rational ?Shifting the Burden of Proof," Working Papers ECARES 2020-19, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2404.04843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.