Journal Article The Measurement of Utility Get access C. Hillinger C. Hillinger Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1969, Pages 111–116, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296348 Published: 01 January 1969 Article history Received: 19 February 1968 Revision received: 15 July 1968 Published: 01 January 1969

upon establishing a means of distinguishing which of two alternative disclosure treatments is the more -useful. The traditional means of attempting to make such distinction is through rational argumentation. Rational argumentation is very useful in exploring and drawing out the logical implications of alternative treatments, but may not be sufficient to enable selection of the better treatment. Recently attempts have been made to employ the Predictive as the means of distinguishing the better of two alternative accounting measurements. This criterion selects as the better of two alternative accounting measurements the one which has the greater to predict a given event considered to be of particular importance.' Surely the application of the predictive ability criterion in accounting research can accomplish much, but continual effort should be made to bring other research methods to bear on the problem of improving accounting disclosure. This paper presents an effort to develop a criterion

This paper gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the following proposition, in which ⪯ and ⪯ i for i = 1,…, n are weak orders on a finite set X. There are real-valued functions f 1 , f 2 ,…, f n on X such that, for all x and y in X and i in {1,…,n}x⪯ i y if and only if f i (x) ≤ f i (y), and x ⪯ y if and only if f l (x) + ⋯ + f n (x) ≤ f l (y) + ⋯ + f n (y). The condition can be viewed as an extension of a simple unanimity or dominance condition.

I. Introduction, 110. — II. The model, 112. — III. The model and Philippine experience, 115. — IV. Demand patterns, demographic change, and economic growth, 120. — V. Implications and conclusions, 124. — Appendix, 125.

Abstract Recently, professors Karl Kafer and V. K. Zimmerman presented an excellently documented paper on the evolution of the funds statement in the U.S. and in Europe. Following extensive exploration, they pointed out some significant deficiencies of the funds statement. The main purpose of this article, however, is to present a different format for the construction of this flow statement. It is hoped that a structural change in this flow statement will throw some additional light on the study of flows of economic resources at the business-enterprise level. In addition to recognizing the distinction between financial and nonfinancial flows of business operations, it is important to analyze their interplay. Productive activities may be financed internally, externally, or both. A detailed presentation of the financial activities of an enterprise will show not only how additional productive resources are acquired, but will also provide a basis, in part at least, for analyzing expansion and future income flow. The conventional balance sheet and income statement are deficient in depicting financial activities of a firm and in relating theft relationship to the firm's productive activities. It must be remembered that net income is "attributable to the whole process of business activity" and that the operations involves continuous movement of productive and financial resources. The resources-flow statement should not be treated as a supplementary device. It is a basic statement in its own right. With two basic types of flows, the need for at least two flow statements is quite dear. In addition, the resources-flow statement is much more than a statement of financial flows.

The memorandum is about the segregation that can result from discriminatory individual behavior. It examines some of the individual incentives, and perceptions of difference, that can lead collectively to segregation. It also examines the extent to which inferences can be drawn, from the phenomenon of collective segregation, about the preferences of individuals, the strengths of those preferences, and the facilities for exercising them.

M ODERN investment functions, springing from the work of Jorgenson,' differ from earlier investment functions in that they start with an explicit assumption about the economy's aggregate production function. In particular, Jorgenson assumes a Cobb-Douglas production function. Starting with an explicit production function means that it is possible to calculate algebraically the impact of factors, such as interest rates, that could not be isolated in earlier investment functions. Choosing the correct production function is important in estimating partial effects, but the proper definition of the cost of capital variable is also central to their correct estimation. Formulations other than those of Jorgenson are possible. If one had priors about the differences in the opportunity cost of capital under the Duesenberry supply of funds hypothesis,2 the cost of capital could be defined to embody these priors. Doing so would lead to different estimates of the partial effects of tax rates, interest rates, and depreciation policies. Thus, the partial effects that emerge from a modern investment function are a product of the initial specifications of the production function and the cost of capital variable. In addition to choosing the correct production function and the correct definition of the cost of capital, there are other directions in which the modern investment function can be modified. In Jorgenson's neoclassical equilibrium world the cost of capital and the marginal product of capital are always identical. Thus, the desired capital stock at any moment of time is equal to output divided by the marginal product of capital (the cost of capital) multiplied by the elasticity of output with respect to capital. Thus, the only problems are ones of correct data measurement and estimation of the lag structure. This formulation has some theoretical problems. Introducing lags means that the economy is not in equilibrium. actual capital stock lags behind the desired capital stock. Therefore, the cost of capital and the marginal product of capital are not equal. Even if they were equal, the marginal product of capital will differ before and after expansion of the capital stock. Thus output should be divided by the expected cost of capital rather than the actual cost of capital to determine the desired capital stock.3 In a disequilibrium world, the cost of capital and the marginal product of capital can diverge. Profit maximizing firms invest to eliminate the gap between the marginal product of capital and the cost of capital. investment necessary to eliminate this gap depends upon the economy's production function. This paper investigates a disequilibrium investment function based on a Cobb-Douglas production function and Jorgenson's definition of the cost of capital. I was led to investigate such a model in the process of attempting to use the Jorgenson investment function.4 Several problems emerged in addition to those investigated elsewhere.5 (1) Although the Jorgenson investment function fit quarterly time series data for producers' * author would like to thank the referee for many useful comments. 'Dale W. Jorgenson, Anticipations and Behavior, in J. S. Duesenberry, E. Kuh, G. Fromm, and L. R. Klein (editors), Brookings Quarterly Econometric Model of the United States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965). Rational Distributed Lag Functions, Econometrica, XXXIV (Jan. 1966), 135-149. With Calvin D. Siebert, A Comparison of Alternative Theories of Corporate Behavior, American Economic Review, XVIII (Sept. 1968). Optimal Capital Accumulation and Corporate Behavior, Journal of Political Economy, LXXVI (Nov./Dec. 1968), 1123-1151. With J. A. Stephenson, The Time Structure of Behavior in United States Manufacturing, 1947-60, this REvIEw, XLIV (Feb. 1967), 16-27. Investment Behavior in U.S. Manufacturing, 1947-60, Econometrica, XXXV (April 1967), 169-220. 2J. Duesenberry, Business Cycles and Economic Growth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), 87-112. 3This was pointed out to me by my colleague Duncan Foley. 'Anyone wishing the detailed econometric results of my attempts to fit the Jorgenson model to producer's durable equipment and nonresidential structures can have them by writing to me. 'Robert Eisner and M. I. Nadiri, Investment Behavior and Neoclassical Theory, this REvIEw, L (Aug. 1968).