C. Lluch, R. Williams, Cross Country Demand and Savings Patterns: An Application of the Extended Linear Expenditure System, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Aug., 1975), pp. 320-328

We have attempted here to trace the implications, in terms of operational procedures, of some postulates about the "physical" nature of objects on one hand and individual choice behaviour on the other. We summarize the major result in very loose terms by asserting that if when choosing from among several objects which are characterized by "qualitative" or "ordinal" properties, an individual's choice obeys a transitivity law, then the choice is necessarily" dictated" by one characteristic a lone; that is, the underlying preference must be lexicographic in one of these ordinal properties. The reader must consult the text below for an elaboration on the meaning of the terms emphasized by quotation marks before the proper context of the result can be established.

Journal Article User Cost and the Preference Function Get access R. W. Latham, R. W. Latham University of Liverpool Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar D. A. Peel D. A. Peel University of Liverpool Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 89, Issue 1, February 1975, Pages 154–156, https://doi.org/10.2307/1881718 Published: 01 February 1975

Reviews the book 'Federal Taxes and Management Decisions,' by Ray M. Sommerfeld.

This article presents response of the author on the comments made by scholar C.G. Hoskins on the paper "Theory Versus Practice in Risk Analysis: An Empirical Study," that was published in the July 1974 of the periodical "The Accounting Review." The comment by Hoskins represents a significant advance in modeling actual decision processes. However, one must add that Hoskins' findings support rather than dispute the conclusion of the original study that there appears to be substantial conflict between the decision processes used by actual decision makers and existing utility theory. The author's intentions in writing this response are to demonstrate why this is so and to expand further on the Hoskins model. It was restated that the model in the original study was not designed to produce decisions, which closely paralleled actual decisions. Rather, the model was built in the shape of classical utility theory with parameters, which were computed from an explicit statement by the firms as to their attitude toward risk-taking. The principal conclusion of the original research was that actual decisions are inconsistent with such a model.