Professor Slutsky's Theory of Consumers' Choice Get access R. G. D. Allen R. G. D. Allen London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 1936, Pages 120–129, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967502 Published: 01 February 1936

Journal Article Some Observations on the Theory and Practice of Price Index Numbers Get access R. G. D. Allen R. G. D. Allen London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 3, Issue 1, October 1935, Pages 57–66, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967572 Published: 01 October 1935

A Note on the Determinateness of the Utility Function Get access R. G. D. Allen R. G. D. Allen Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 2, Issue 2, February 1935, Pages 155–158, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967563 Published: 01 February 1935

Journal Article The Concept of Arc Elasticity of Demand: I Get access R. G. D. Allen R. G. D. Allen London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 1, Issue 3, June 1934, Pages 226–229, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967486 Published: 01 June 1934

Journal Article The Nature of Indifference Curves Get access R. G. D. Allen R. G. D. Allen London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 1, Issue 2, February 1934, Pages 110–121, https://doi.org/10.2307/2967617 Published: 01 February 1934

I. General comments: the use of mathematics by Hicks and by Samuelson, 111. — II. Samuelson's treatment of cost and production, 114. — III. Hicks and Samuelson on consumers' demand, 118. — IV. Samuelson's dynamics: difference equations, 121.

THE relationship between a given pair of consumers' goods can assume various forms in an individual's scale of preferences. It is usual, however, to allot the pair of goods to one or other of two main classes, the classes of complementary and of competitive goods. A number of criteria or definitions of the distinction between complementary and competitive goods have been suggested, and of these the most precise, from the mathematical standpoint, are the simple criterion first put forward by Edgeworth and Pareto and the more complicated one given in a recent paper by the present author.' The object of these notes is to examine further both these definitions and, in particular, to discover what connection there is between them. The definition of complementary and competitive goods given by Edgeworth and Pareto assumes the existence of a total utility function which gives, for the individual under consideration, the utility of any combination (x, y, z, ) of the set of consumers' goods X, Y, Z, * , appearing in his scale of preferences. Denoting this function by u =4(x, y, z, ... ), the relation between any pair of goods X and Y de-