Indifference in economics: Between praxeology and the neoclassical presentation of a consumer’s choice

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the article is to present the differences in the research approach concerning consumer behaviour from the perspective of neoclassical economics and the Austrian school of economics.

Research Design & Methods: The article applies the qualitative approach based on comparative analysis of the subject literature. While selecting research material, the author considered major works presenting the neoclassical theory of a consumer’s choice as well as those representing the Austrian school, criticizing neoclassical views.

Findings: The article explains the methodological approaches leading to alternative interpretations of indifference in neoclassical economics and the Austrian school.

Implications & Recommendations: Indifference constitutes the key category that enables readers to understand positions adopted by neoclassical economists and representatives of the Austrian school of economics. The conducted analysis implies that different understanding of indifference constitutes the main source of the dispute regarding the theories of a consumer’s behaviour in the analyzed concepts.

Contribution & Value Added: The value added of this article lies in showing the causes of divergence between the theory of a consumer’s choice developed in neoclassical economics and its criticism expressed by representatives of the Austrian school of economics.

Keywords

indifference analysis, praxeology, neoclassical economics, Austrian school of economics, methodology of economics

Author Biography

Wojciech Giza

Associate Professor at the Krakow University of Economics (Poland). Habilitation in economics (2014), PhD in economics (2003). His research interests include microeconomics (mainly neoclassical economics), the history of economic thought and the methodology of economics.

References

1. Allen, R.G.D. (1936). Professor Slutsky’s Theory of Consumers’ Choice. Review of Economic Studies, 3(2), 1936, 120-129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967502
2. Bažantová, I. (2015). Czech Economist Karel Engliš and his Relation to The Austrian School in the First Half of the 20th Century. Prague Economic Papers, 25(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.pep.557
3. Beed, C., & Beed, C. (2000). The status of economics as a naturalistic social science. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(4), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.4.417
4. Bentham, J. (1823). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Printed for W. Pickering and R. Wilson. Retrieved from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1780.pdf on February 20, 2024.
5. Bjerkholt, O. (2017). On the Founding of the Econometric Society. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 39(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383721600002X
6. Block, W., & Barnett II, W. (2010). Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again. Reason Papers, 32, 141-154. Retrieved from https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf on February 20, 2024.
7. Block, W. (1980). On Robert Nozick’s ‘on Austrian methodology’. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), 397-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748008601918
8. Block, W. (1999). Austrian theorizing: Recalling the foundations. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(4), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12113-999-1029-4
9. Block, W. (2022). Response to Wysocki on indifference. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce), 72, 37-62. Retrieved from https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2140682 on February 12, 2024.
10. Boettke, P.J. (2020). Mises’s Human Action and Its Place in Science and Intellectual Culture. The Independent Review, 24(4), 557-565. Retrieved from https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_24_4_08_boettke.pdf on February 12, 2024.
11. Bowley, A.L. (1924). The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics: An Introductory Treatise, London: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/bwb_P6-AGM-292/page/n9/mode/2up on February 12, 2024.
12. Cuhel, C. (2017). On the Theory of Needs, Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved from https://fee.org/ebooks/on-the-theory-of-needs-by-franz-cuhel/downloads/ on September 18, 2024.
13. Debreu, G. (1954). Representation of a Preference Ordering by a Numerical Function. In Thrall, M., Davis, R.C., & Coombs, C.H. (Eds.), Decision Processes (pp. 159-165.), New York: John Wiley and Sons.
14. Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Valu. New York: Wiley.
15. Doležalová, A. (2018). A History of Czech Economic Thought. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315690957
16. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1881). Mathematical Psychics. An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/mathematicalpsy01goog/page/n8/mode/2up on February 12, 2024.
17. Espinas, A. (1890). Les origines de la technologie. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l’Etranger, 30(3), 113-135.
18. Hicks, J.R., & Allen, R.G.D. (1934). A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value. Part I. Economica. New Series, 1(1), 52-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2548574
19. Hicks, J.R. (1937). Mr. Keynes and the “Classics”; a suggested interpretation. Econometrica, 5(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907242
20. Hicks, J.R. (1939). Value and Capital. Oxford: ClarendonPress.
21. Hoppe, H.H. (2005). Must Austrians embrace indifference?. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 8(4), 87-91.
22. Jevons, W.S. (1871). The Theory of Political Economy, London: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://unidaddepublicaciones.web.unq.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/sites/120/2019/09/Jevons_1871_The-Theory-of-Political-Economy.pdf on February 12, 2024.
23. Johnson, W.E. (1913). The Pure Theory of Utility Curves. The Economic Journal, 23(92), 483-513. https://doi.org/10.2307/2221661
24. Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.
25. Lange, O. (1936). On the Economic Theory of Socialism. Part One. The Review of Economic Studies, 1, 53-71. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967660
26. Lange, O. (1937). On the Economic Theory of Socialism. Part Two.The Review of Economic Studies, 2, 123-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967609
27. Machaj, M. (2007). A praxeological case for homogeneity and indifference. New Perspectives on Political Economy, 3(2), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.62374/b94z8y61
28. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan and Co.
29. Menger, C. (1871). Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre. Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller.
30. Mises von, L. (1920). Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 47, 86-121. Retrieved from http://davidmhart.com/liberty/GermanClassicalLiberals/Mises/1920-EconomicCalculation/Mises-Wirtschaftsrechnung-facsimile1920.pdf on February 22, 2024.
31. Mises von, L. (1977). Comment on the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Problem. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1(2), 97-100. Retrieved from https://cdn.mises.org/1_2_2_0.pdf on February 15, 2024.
32. Mises von, L. (1998). Human Action. A Treatise on Economics, Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Retrieved from https://cdn.mises.org/Human%20Action_3.pdf on February 15, 2024.
33. Moscati, I. (2003). History of Neoclassical Consumer Theory: A Neo-Kantian Epistemological Perspective. La matematica nella storia dellíeconomia. Primo Workshop, Torino 16-17 ottobre.
34. Nozick, R. (1977). On Austrian Methodology. Synthese, 36(3), 353-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00486025
35. O’Neill, B. (2010). Choice and Indifference: A Critique of the Strict Preference Approach. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 13(1), 71-98. Retrieved from https://cdn.mises.org/qjae13_1_4.pdf on February 15, 2024.
36. Redman, D.A. (1993). Adam Smith and Isaac Newton. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 40(2), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1993.tb00651.x
37. Rothbard, M. (1956). Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics. Retrieved from https://cdn.mises.org/Toward%20a%20Reconstruction%20of%20Utility%20and%20Welfare%20Economics_3.pdf tility and Welfare Economics (mises.org) on February 15, 2024.
38. Samuelson, P.A. (1948). Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference. Economica. NewSeries, 15(60), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2549561
39. Schultz, H. (1935). Interrelations of Demand, Price, and Income. Journal of Political Economy, 43, 433-433. https://doi.org/10.1086/254812
40. Slutsky, E. (1915). Sulla teoria del bilancio del consumatore. Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica, 51(1), 1-26.
41. Snowdon, B., & Vane, H.R. (2005). Modern Macroeconomics. Its Origins, Development and Current State. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
42. Stark, W. (1946). Jeremy Bentham as an Economist. The Economic Journal, 56(224), 583-608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2225988
43. Varian, H.R. (2010). Intermediate Microeconomics. A Modern Approach. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.
44. Vazquez, A. (1995). Marshall and the Mathematization of Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17(2), 247-265. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837200002625
45. Walras, L.E. (1874). Éléments d’Économie Politique Pure, ou Théorie de la richesse sociale, Lausanne: Corbaz & C. Retrieved from http://unidaddepublicaciones.web.unq.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/sites/120/2019/09/Walras_1874_Elements-deconomie-politique-pure.pdf on February 17, 2024.
46. Weintraub, E.R. (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science, Durham and London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383802
47. Wong, S. (2006). The Foundations of Paul Samuelson’s Revealed Preference Theory. A study by the method of rational reconstruction, London and New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.library.fa.ru/files/Wong.pdf on February 17, 2024.
48. Wysocki, I. (2021). The problem of indifference and homogeneity in Austrian economics: Nozick’s challenge revisited. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce), 71, 9-44. Retrieved from https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/article/view/554 on February 14, 2024.