The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment
Abstract
In the course of his interesting paper on the “Scope and Method of Economics,”* Mr. Harrod raises once more the question of the status of interpersonal comparisons of utility. I do not wish directly to controvert any of his statements on this matter. But it occurs to me that a short account of the genesis of the views which I have put forward, and which form the subject of his friendly comment, might at once elucidate the nature of our differences and make clear to those who rejoice in the spectacle of disunity how very slender the practical implications of these differences actually are. I must apologise in advance for the personal nature of the argument. I am under no illusion concerning the interest of my intellectual difficulties in so far as they are purely my own. But, in so far as they can be regarded as typical, a brief explanation may perhaps facilitate mutual understanding. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The theory of decision making.
Edwards, W. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0053870 · Cited by 2,697
Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll
Deaton, A. (2008) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.22.2.53 · Cited by 1,636
Does the brain calculate value?
Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.008 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Robbins, L.
- Venue
- Economic Science and Political Economy
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan UK
- Published
- 1997
- Pages
- 199-204
- OpenAlex
- W2315089901
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.78
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-1-349-12761-0_15
- The paper
- Robbins, L. (1997). Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: A Comment. Economic Science and Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12761-0_15
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.