Evolution and Theoretical Implications of the Utility Concept

Academic Edi o : Geo ge Halkos Recei ed: 29 Augus 2025 Re ised: 20 Sep embe 2025 Accep ed: 24 Sep embe 2025 Published: 29 Sep embe 2025 Ci a ion: Di Foggia, G., A igo, U., & Becca ello, M. (2025). E olu ion and Theo e ical Implica ions o he U ili y Concep . Economies,13(10), 283. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ economies13100283 Copy igh : © 2025 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/ licenses/by/4.0/). Re iew E olu ion and Theo e ical Implica ions o he U ili y Concep Giacomo Di Foggia * , Ugo A igo and Massimo Becca ello Depa men o Business and Law, Uni e si y o Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milan, I aly; [email p o ec ed] (U.A.) *Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] Abs ac We e iew he e olu ion o he concep o u ili y in economics, add essing he concep ual and e minological agmen a ion ha cha ac e ises he in e disciplina y deba e. This s udy adop s he scoping e iew amewo k o sys ema ically analyse he main heo e ical app oaches, anging om u ili y as p e e ence o u ili y as subjec i e sa is ac ion and well- being. Pa icula a en ion is paid o p ocedu al u ili y, i.e., he u ili y de i ed om he way decisions a e made and in e ac ions de elop, di ided in o h ee a eas: indi idual, linked o au onomy and sel -de e mina ion; in e pe sonal, ela ed o he quali y o social ela ions; and ins i u ional, e e ing o pa icipa ion and ecogni ion. The analysis is based on h ee aspec s: (i) how di e en heo e ical adi ions ha e in e p e ed u ili y and well-being; (ii) wha con e gences and di e gences eme ge in he con empo a y li e a u e; (iii) and wha implica ions hese ac o s ha e o esea ch and public policy. We highligh he complemen a i y be ween app oaches and sugges ex ending economic e lec ion o dimensions ha a e cen al o he well-being o indi iduals and socie ies. The insigh s o his s udy ha e public policy implica ions, indica ing ha , h ough well-de ined ins i u ions, dis ibu i e jus ice, and wel a e sys ems, axpaye s’ hedonic u ili y can be ans o med in o he ch ema is ic u ili y o bene icia ies. Keywo ds: u ili y; well-being; p e e ences; happiness; p ocedu al u ili y; ou come u ili y; economic heo y; collec i e choices; public economics 1. In oduc ion U ili y is he backbone o he u ili a ianism concep ha has been e y in luen ial among economis s, apa om being necessa y o unde s anding people’s wel a e (Hasle , 1990). We highligh aspec s ha complica e ea ing i as uni ocal. The e m u ili y has unde gone a shi in meaning o e ime (B oome,1991;Wi ,2016), ansi ioning om ep esen ing a ma e ial p ope y o goods o a subjec i e men al s a e, la e becoming synonymous wi h e ealed p e e ence, and ecen ly, becoming a subjec o e lec ion wi hin he happiness and economics app oach. The plu al na u e o u ili y makes compa ison and agg ega ion, i.e., ankings o ela i e p e e ences (Fabian e al.,2022), in insically challenging (Sen,1991) due o i s mul iple amewo ks (T. J. B ennan,1989). Alongside hese wo app oaches—genealogical and plu alis —we ocus on a hi d pe spec i e ha iden i ies wo peculia i ies ha ha e no been adequa ely highligh ed in he deba e so a . The i s deals wi h he coexis ence o wo meanings o u ili y: ch ema is ic u ili y (CU), ancho ed in he A is o elian and, o some ex en , Smi hian adi ion, and hedonic u ili y (HU). The la e conce ns u ili y ha gene a es he second peculia i y, gi en ha i can be de i ed om ou comes and he p ocesses by which hey a e ob ained (Eas e lin,2004;F ey & S u ze ,2000). The dis inc ion be ween CU, de i ing om he Economies 2025,13, 283 h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/economies13100283 Economies 2025,13, 283 2 o 20 objec i e p ope ies o goods, and HU, subjec i ely p oduced by pe sons hanks o goods, has impo an consequences on he in e pe sonal compa abili y o u ili y since, in he second case, i mee s he well-known p oblems aised by Robbins. A he same ime, in he i s , i is exemp . We p opose a b oad ypology o o ms o u ili y o s eng hen he heo e ical oun- da ions o wel a e economics. Al hough he classi ica ion may also ha e implica ions o beha iou al modelling, ou p ima y objec i e is no ma i e: o p o ide a concep ual amewo k o assessing well-being beyond he me e sa is ac ion o p e e ences. Fo cla - i y, p e e ences a e ea ed he e as indica o s o well-being a he han as desc ip o s o obse ed beha iou . This dis inc ion sepa a es he no ma i e om he posi i e pe spec i e while p ese ing sha ed cha ac e is ics. P e e ence o de ings may some imes be in oked o simpli ica ion pu poses. We explo e he concep o u ili y by acing i s main concep ual ans o ma ions o eco e i s o iginal seman ic ichness and heo e ical dep h. C i ical s eps in his e olu ion a e iden i ied: he p e-Ben ham dis inc ion be ween ins umen al u ili y (IU) and pleasu e, he pos -Ben ham iden i ica ion o u ili y wi h pe sonal well-being, he asep ic ede ini ion o u ili y in he e ealed p e e ence app oach, and i s e-hedonisa ion in he happiness and economics app oach. O hese, he i s wo a e pa icula ly ele an . Indeed, while use ul in he con ex o , e.g., consume choices, he e ealed p e e ence app oach s uggles in a eas whe e p ocedu al dimensions a e impo an . The impossibili y o in e ing wel a e p e e ences om choices in he p esence o p ocedu al cos s con i ms he need o dis inguish be ween hese wo concep s. In his sense, i is impossible o main ain consis ency be ween choices and p e e ences on he one hand and be ween p e e ences and wel a e on he o he (Schwa z & Cheek,2017;Sen,2006; Yang,2018). Al hough he happiness and economics app oach enables he dissec ion o he sou ces o pe cei ed well-being, i isks unde es ima ing i s ma e ial componen . We aim o highligh he cen ali y o wo concep ual dis inc ions. The i s is he dis inc ion be ween CU and HU (Millg am,2000;Viglia olo,2020), eco e ing he seman ic cla i y p esen in classical hough , and he second is he dis inc ion be ween p ocedu al and ou come u ili y (OU), ex ending he concep o p ocedu al u ili y (PU) o non-ins i u ional con ex s. These wo dis inc ions open new c i ical pe spec i es on es ablished economic heo ies and aise ques ions abou he legi imacy o exclusi ely using he OU in collec i e choices. In his con ex , he p ocedu al and communica i e app oaches, he la e inspi ed by he philosophe Habe mas, can o e an al e na i e o he simple agg ega ion o indi idual p e e ences, sugges ing he need o jus i ica ion and uni e salisa ion in collec i e decision- making p ocesses. The goal is o sys ema ise knowledge on he e olu ion o he u ili y concep in eco- nomics wi h implica ions ha can bene i public decision-make s, who can d aw aluable insigh s o de eloping and adap ing sec o al policies, and schola s, o u he heo e - ical and empi ical esea ch. This wo k engages wi h he classical li e a u e on wel a e economics and u ili y heo y, s eng hening he link be ween concep ual e lec ion and ecen applica ions. The insigh s d awn om he li e a u e iden i y some es ablished ends and he eme gence o mul idisciplina y app oaches. The o iginal con ibu ions o his wo k consis o a gene alised summa y o he main indings and a se o p oposals aimed a en iching bo h academic and ope a ional deba e, o e ing an in e p e a i e amewo k. A e he in oduc ion, he Sec ion 2examines he ans o ma ion o he meaning a - ibu ed o he concep o u ili y h oughou he his o y o economic hough . The Sec ion 3 p oposes a classi ica ion o he main heo e ical u ili y a ia ions, paying pa icula a en- ion o he dis inc ions be ween dual u ili y, OU, PU, and hedonic and ins umen al u ili y. Economies 2025,13, 283 3 o 20 The Sec ion 4explo es he na u e o PU, which is analysed in ou espec s: indi idual ac- ion, in e pe sonal ela ions, communica i e in e subjec i e con ex s, and ins i u ionalised p ocesses. The Sec ion 5discusses he heo e ical implica ions o ou wo k. 2. Resea ch F amewo k F agmen a ion ha cha ac e ises economic analysis o u ili y and well-being makes i challenging o compa e di e en app oaches and limi s he possibili y o d awing implica- ions o esea ch and public policy. The heo e ical basis has been selec ed by combining classic con ibu ions om wel a e economics and u ili y heo y wi h he mos ecen de- elopmen s in he li e a u e o g ound he analysis in a solid and up- o-da e concep ual amewo k. The esea ch gap iden i ied is he lack o an in eg a ed amewo k ela ing he di e en analy ical and e minological adi ions. Despi e he g owing numbe o con ibu ions in he economic, psychological and philosophical ields, a sys ema ic e lec ion helps cla i y hei heo e ical links. To add ess his gap, he li e a u e e iew was conduc ed using he scoping e iew amewo k (A k- sey & O’Malley,2005;Le ac e al.,2010), which is sui able o explo ing complex and mul idisciplina y esea ch ields. In pa icula , he p ocedu e in ol ed: (i) iden i ying he p oblem and esea ch ques ions, (ii) de ining inclusion c i e ia, (iii) sys ema ic sea ching o in e na ional da abases and he selec ion o con ibu ions h ough speci ic keywo ds, and (i ) he in eg a ion o classical e e ences o he his o ical econs uc ion o he deba e. This app oach ensu es a consis en selec ion o sou ces and allows us o dis inguish be ween esul s de i ed om he li e a u e and o iginal con ibu ions p oposed in his wo k. Ne e heless, ou analysis has some limi a ions, bo h in i s scope, which is a om exhaus i e and in he necessa y simpli ica ions. Gi en he abo emen ioned conside a ions, his s udy is based on he ollowing e- sea ch ques ions: How ha e di e en heo e ical adi ions de ined and in e p e ed he concep o u ili y and well-being? Wha a e he main concep ual and e minological con- e gences and di e gences in he con empo a y li e a u e on u ili y and well-being? Wha implica ions a ise om he analysis o he academic deba e and he de elopmen o well- being-o ien ed public policies? I should be ecognised ha many concep s mo e explici han u ili y exis o desc ibe p ope y owne ship, social wel a e, o indi idual sa is ac ion and pleasu e, explaining such phenomena solely in e ms o u ili y emains p oblema ic. Tha said, ou wo k con ibu es o educing he agmen a ion o u ili y analyses, acili a ing compa ison among al e na i e app oaches and p o iding implica ions o public policy. 3. E olu ion o he U ili y Concep The concep o u ili y has e ol ed ac oss he his o y o economic hough along wi h signi ican changes in i s meaning (B oome,1991) e en i we hink ha signi ican changes in he meaning o u ili y can be in e p e ed as pa allel and coexis ing meanings a he han subs i u ions. B oome s a s om Ben ham’s o iginal de ini ion o u ili y, which is inhe en in goods: “By u ili y is mean ha p ope y in any objec , whe eby i ends o p oduce bene i , ad an age, pleasu e, good, o happiness . . . o . . . o p e en he happening o mischie , pain, e il, o unhappiness o he pa y whose in e es is conside ed”. Ini ially, u ili y e e ed o he p ope y o an objec ha ends o p oduce bene i , ad- an age, pleasu e, o happiness o o p e en ha m, pain, o unhappiness (Ben ham,1996). I is wo h no ing ha al hough Ben ham is emembe ed as he ounde o he hedonis ic adi ion, he does no o e a single de ini ion o well-being bu unde s ands pleasu e and pain as abb e ia ions o b oade ca ego ies o alue and dis alue. Fu he mo e, some o he e ms he uses e e o a clea ly hedonic u ili y (pleasu e, good, and happiness in he posi i e sense, and pain, e il, and unhappiness in he nega i e sense), while o he s e e Economies 2025,13, 283 4 o 20 o a u ili y ha is no necessa ily only hedonic (bene i s and ad an ages in he posi i e sense, ha m in he nega i e sense). The den is ’s d ill and he nu se’s sy inge undoub edly p oduce bene i s and ad an ages, bu ha dly any pleasu e. A i s concep ual change occu ed om his de ini ion o u ili y as an objec ’s capaci y o gene a e bene i . Pleasu e and pain should he e o e be unde s ood as abb e ia ions o b oade ca ego ies o alue and dis alue, making he measu emen o indi idual well- being mo e ope a ional. G adually, u ili y came o be unde s ood no as he capaci y o a good o p oduce bene i , bu as he ac ual bene i gene a ed o he owne . This in e p e a ion has led o indi idual u ili y being conside ed he sum o he bene i s ob ained om he goods, measu ing indi idual well-being mo e ope a ionally, a leas in heo y. The second change conce ns he in oduc ion o he axioma ic app oach o e ealed p e e ences, and a new app oach eme ged in which well-being is concei ed as a subjec i e s a e o happiness, commonly measu ed h ough indica o s o subjec i e well-being. While he concep o happiness has e ol ed ema kably, up o becoming closely associa ed wi h he economic concep o u ili y, in luenced by philosophy, psychology, sociology, and economics (Semeno & Nedeljko i´c,2023), he con e gence may be explained by he use o he e m wi hin he e ealed p e e ence app oach. Happiness may in ol e u ili y and measu emen challenges, wi h po en ial o subjec i e and objec i e app oaches (Ram a an & Szenbe g,2021). Eudaimonic u ili y ( om A is o le’s concep o eudaimonia, which, unlike he p e- Soc a ic hedonis s, does no iden i y happiness wi h pleasu e bu wi h a i ue-o ien ed li e) conside s well-being as he esul o a li e li ed in acco dance wi h one’s alues, de elopmen o one’s po en ial and he achie emen o meaning ul goals (Hu a,2016;Ryan & Deci,2001). No wi hs anding, well-being can be unde s ood as a b oade cons uc ha in eg a es bo h elemen s (Hende son e al.,2013;Joshanloo e al.,2020;Panche a e al., 2020) and e lec s bo h he hedonic and eudaimonic componen s. I u ili y is unde s ood as a good’s capaci y o gene a e posi i e men al s a es, hen i is no su p ising ha he hedonic bene i ecei ed by an indi idual comes o be conside ed u ili y and, by ex ension, ha indi idual u ili y is de ined as he sum o bene i s de i ed om he goods possessed. An ins umen al concep ion o u ili y e e s o he objec i e p ope ies o goods ha ha e u ili y inso a as hey p oduce ma e ial bene i s. F om an ins umen al o an ou come concep ion, he change in meaning was made possible by an unde lying shi om an objec i e/ma e ial iew o u ili y o a subjec i e/hedonic iew. The e o e, e i ying he au ho s’ use o he e m be o e Ben ham is impo an . Fo example, Adam Smi h adop s an objec i e and ins umen al concep ion o u ili y in The Weal h o Na ions, which he calls alue in use (Win ey,1993). A simila iew is ound in Hume, which dis inguishes he use ul om he immedia ely ag eeable, ecognising ha , alongside u ili y as he basis o mo al app o al, he e a e quali ies ha people app o e o simply because hey a e pleasan , ei he o hose who possess hem o o o he s (Sidgwick, 2011). Smi h’s objec i e concep ion o u ili y is consis en wi h ha o A is o le, whe e i is s a ed ha weal h is no , mani es ly, he good we seek since i is used o p ocu e o he hings; in his ega d, A is o le’s wo ks also shed ligh on he meaning o money (C espo, 2020) and i s ole. He e, he u ili y o ma e ial goods is unde s ood in an ins umen al and objec i e sense; i is wo h no ing ha A is o le also uses he G eek e m ch eia, which also has a subjec i e conno a ion, and Smi h also acknowledges he special pleasu e o mu ual sympa hy ha can be desc ibed as an in e subjec i e o p ocedu al sou ce o u ili y. Ch ema is ic indica es he IU o goods, e e ing o he e m ha designa es weal h. This objec i e iew o u ili y has been p og essi ely eplaced by a subjec i e concep ion— u ili a ianism. This shi can al eady be seen in Rica do’s w i ing (C emaschi,2004), in which u ili y is no he measu e o exchange alue, ye is essen ial. The dis inc ion be ween Economies 2025,13, 283 5 o 20 use alue and exchange alue, made by classical economis s, mo e clea ly a icula es he easons o use alue and exchange, while also e ealing ha he alue o goods has a social con en beyond he indi idual–objec ela ionship. I a p oduc o a se ice we e useless, ha is, i i could no possibly con ibu e o ou sa is ac ion, i would ha e no exchange alue, ega dless o how a e i migh be o how much e o i migh ake o ob ain i (Rica do,2014;Robinson & S a a,1951). A subjec i e concep ion o u ili y was also o mula ed by Mill, when he s a ed ha he u ili y o a good in he es ima ion o he pu chase ep esen s he ex eme limi o i s exchange alue: a highe alue is no possible, excep in excep ional ci cums ances (Mill,2010). Fo Mill, he alue a ibu ed o use is iden i ied wi h he indi idual’s maximum willingness o pay. The abo e-men ioned conside a ions lead o a dual concep ion o u ili y. On he one hand, u ili y is linked o objec i e p ope ies— o example, he nu i ional alue o ood, which a ec s physical and ma e ial well-being; simila ly, he p o ec i e capaci y o a accine o he cu a i e powe o a medicine. On he o he hand, u ili y is associa ed wi h he subjec i e ep esen a ion o ce ain quali ies—such as he adhe ence o a good o aes he ic o cul u al s anda ds— ha gene a e hedonic well-being. Willingness o pay, he e o e, inco po a es bo h componen s wi hou implying ha he objec i i y and subjec i i y o he sou ces o u ili y a e on ologically equi alen . In his con ex , in luences o ma ginalism and ma hema ical o malisa ion expanded as he concep o u ili y de eloped ini ially as an al e na i e o he classical labou heo y o alue. A signi ican economic me hodological choice in i s ea men o he concep o u ili y is me hodological indi idualism, which is e y impo an o he concep o u ili y (Kjosa ik,2003). Au ho s such as Pa e o (McLu e,2008), Pan aleoni (Beca ini,2018) and Edgewo h (Samuels,1992) played a ema kable ole in i s o malisa ion in he neoclassical adi ion. Indeed, Pa e o ma ks a u ning poin by in oducing he o de o p e e ences (McLu e,2000; Ven u a e al.,2016) and p ominen au ho s, including, among o he s, Je ons, Menge and Wal as, ep esen he ini ial phase o neoclassicism while concei ing u ili y as measu able (Mosca i,2013). An example o his app oach is Edgewo h’s p oposal, who heo ised a hedonime e o di ec ly measu e he pleasu e o pain expe ienced by indi iduals, exp essing he ambi ion o measu e well-being as an obse able quan i a i e quan i y (Colande ,2007;Sky ms & Na ens, 2018). To he same oken, Pan aleoni main ains a hedonis ic basis while adop ing ma ginalis easoning (Flux e al.,1898), and i is wo h men ioning he con ibu ion o Mazzola, who, somehow an icipa ing he mode n heo y o public goods, s ipula ed he p inciple ha he p o ision o public se ices should be guided by ma ginal cos (Faus o,2008). Ma ginalis s concei ed u ili y as a quan i y measu able in ca dinal e ms, allowing compa isons be ween goods and indi iduals. Wi h Pa e o’s con ibu ion, u ili y became measu able in o dinal e ms, i.e., as an o de ing o p e e ences (Ba ley,2007). This ansi- ion made i possible o o malise consume pu chasing choices ou side o psychological measu emen s, gi ing shape o he axioma ic amewo k o e ealed p e e ences cen al o neoclassical economics. The amewo k con ains a numbe o di e en heo ies (Hands,2014), including he p ominen Samuelson’s con ibu ion o he consume ’s choice pa adigm (Hou hakke , 1950), in which u ili y becomes a o mal ool o economic analysis. The consolida ion o o dinal u ili y can also be seen in Robbins’s concep o economics as decision science (Shiz- gal,2012). Inco po a ing he app oaches o neoclassical economis s o he measu abili y o u ili y, he concep has become a o mal ool in economic analysis. Tha said, me hods ela ing o he measu abili y o u ili y ha e been c i icised (Blaug,1993). Economies 2025,13, 283 6 o 20 This non-exhaus i e esume shows how u ili y has shi ed om an objec i e p ope y o goods o a subjec i e s a e and inally o a o mal ool o choice heo y, and is help ul o he app oaches discussed in he ollowing sec ions. 4. U ili y App oaches The ma e ial and psychological na u e o he concep o u ili y e eals a mo e complex iew o indi idual and collec i e well-being. We explo e his complexi y, examining he in luence o dual u ili y on u ili a ian hinking, he dis inc ion be ween he ou come u ili y and ha o p ocesses, and he ela ionship be ween ins umen al and HU, while he e ealed p e e ence app oach shows how u ili y can be ea ed as an o dinal cons uc , independen o di ec psychological o no ma i e in e p e a ions 4.1. Dual U ili y and I s In luence on U ili a ianism and Consequen ialism The dual na u e o u ili y acili a es a mo e s aigh o wa d in e p e a ion o many economic phenomena. Fi s , he e is o en a ade-o be ween IU and HU: goods wi h high IU, such as wa e , end o ha e a negligible hedonic componen , which explains he low willingness o pay and he esul ing low exchange alue (Seol & Kim,2022;Shao & Li,2021). Con e sely, goods wi h high hedonic con en , e.g., diamonds in he well-known Smi h example, o en lack ins umen al p ope ies while gene a ing a high willingness o pay. Second, he ac ha goods wi h high IU bu low HU ha e a low subjec i e alua ion does no imply ha consume s comple ely dis ega d hei objec i e cha ac e is ics, o ha hey a e no ele an . Fo example, a cooking po is use ul in a p ac ical sense, bu i does no usually gene a e hedonis ic men al s a es in hose who use i . These e ec s also include hose associa ed wi h goods ha ha e pu ely echnical o ins umen al unc ions. These conside a ions ega ding he ela ionship be ween goods and indi iduals h ough he lens o dual u ili y a e illus a ed in Figu e 1as an adap a ion o a diag am p oposed by Colla d and Sen (1984). The main changes a e as ollows: (i) he dis inc ion be ween he wo ca ego ies o u ili y, p ac ical/objec i e and hedonic/subjec i e, ep esen ed sepa a ely; (ii) he di e en ia ion be ween ins umen al and hedonic unc ions. Figu e 1. Concep s in ol ed in he ela ionship be ween goods and people. Sou ce: The au ho s. As men ioned abo e, some goods a e cha ac e ised by high IU and low HU, while o he s essen ially gene a e subjec i e u ili y, wi h no signi ican objec i e bene i s. Goods Economies 2025,13, 283 7 o 20 ha ac i a e only one o he wo componen s a e a e, while goods ha p oduce opposing e ec s a e mo e common because o he men ioned ade-o . A pa adigma ic example o goods ha gene a e exclusi ely IU is a c ucial d ug o ea ing a speci ic disease. I s consump ion does no p oduce any HU, ye indi iduals a e willing o pay o i . In his scena io, he pe cei ed u ili y is en i ely a ibu able o he good’s unc ional p ope ies. The subsequen eco e y will also p oduce hedonic e ec s, bu hese a e indi ec e ec s compa ed o he use o he d ug. Examples o goods ha gene a e exclusi ely HU can be in age ca s kep by collec o s o p o o ypes exhibi ed a mo o shows. These goods ha e no IU bu a e desi able o indi iduals who de i e aes he ic, symbolic, o iden i y sa is ac ion om hei possession. Collec able i ems, such as s amps and coins no longe in ci cula ion, a e examples o HU: hei o iginal unc ion has ceased o exis , bu a willingness o pay o hem emains, e lec ing emo ional, symbolic, o cul u al alue. The d ug men ioned abo e may also be an example o goods wi h posi i e IU and nega i e HU; e.g., i may be unpleasan o as e o cause unpleasan sensa ions when aken. One would expe ience an objec i e bene i in e ms o heal h, bu his bene i is accompanied by a subjec i e dis alue linked o he senso y expe ience. The complexi y inc eases i he d ug, while p oducing a heal h imp o emen , causes side e ec s, e.g., a adia ion he apy o a accine. In his scena io, posi i e IU, nega i e bu wi h low impac IU, and nega i e HU coexis , in ol ing subjec i e assessmen s ha mus media e be ween con lic ing e ec s. Nume ous cases all in o he ca ego y o goods wi h nega i e IU and posi i e HU, such as eckless d i ing o high- isk spo s. Addic ions, e.g., o alcohol o smoking, also belong o his class. In all hese cases, indi iduals a e subjec o objec i e dis alue, po en ially ha ming hei heal h o sa e y. S ill, hey pe cei e a men al o emo ional bene i su icien o compensa e o hese isks, a leas in he sho e m. Table 1con ains a o mal ep esen a ion o he ou ca ego ies o goods, based on Equa ion (1), i.e., a u ili y unc ion comp ising wo componen s, whe e Uis he o al u ili y pe cei ed by he subjec , Ui , e lec s he IU, and Uh, s ands o he HU. U=Ui+Uh(1) Table 1. Some app oaches o u ili y. Type Cases Ca ego y IU HU IU HU Goods wi h only IU >0 =0 E ec i e d ug wi h no hedonic impac Value based solely on unc ionali y Goods wi h only HU =0 >0 Non- unc ional collec able ca , a e s amp No ins umen al unc ion Posi i e IU, nega i e HU >0 <0 E ec i e bu unpleasan medicine wi h side e ec s Hedonic discom o educes o e all alue Nega i e IU, posi i e HU <0 >0 Ha m ul bu as y oods, alcohol, d ugs, smoking, eckless d i ing Subjec i e pleasu e ou weighs po en ial objec i e ha m Sou ce: he au ho s. I should be no ed ha equa ions ep esen ing u ili y a e o malised as he sum o he componen s, assuming hey a e linea ly sepa able. This simpli ica ion is ele an because, e.g., nonlinea i ies, h eshold e ec s, o in e ac ions be ween componen s could be con- side ed. The e o e, al hough we adop his sepa abili y o cla i y, iche unc ional o ms could cap u e mo e complex ela ionships. This simpli ica ion is ele an because, e.g., nonlinea i ies, h eshold e ec s, o in e ac ions be ween componen s could be conside ed. Economies 2025,13, 283 8 o 20 The e o e, al hough we adop his sepa abili y o cla i y, iche unc ional o ms could cap u e mo e complex ela ionships. Table 1 esumes he u ili y (Ui,Uh) , acco ding o a class o goods., acco ding o a class o goods. The dual na u e o u ili y c ea es heo e ical issues o u ili a ianism. In pa icula , he hedonic app oach o e looks he e ec s o he a ailabili y o he ma e ial ounda ions o well-being ha do no gene a e men al pe cep ions and, he e o e, do no cons i u e psycho- logical expe iences. Ma e ial well-being does no necessa ily coincide wi h psychological well-being; hence, he wo dimensions should be assessed sepa a ely. Fo example, an ai condi ioning machine imp o es well-being. Howe e , al hough ma e ial bene i s pe sis o e ime, psychological bene i s end o ade wi h habi . Con e sely, a machine ailu e educes well-being a bo h le els. Mo e gene ally, wel a e app oaches end o conside OU, neglec ing wo elemen s: HU can also be de i ed om he p ocesses ha lead o he ou come, and ela ional goods can be p oduced by in e pe sonal in e ac ions no aimed a speci ic ou comes. Thus, while ma e ial goods gene a e well-being only when ob ained, psychological e ec s can a ise om he a ailabili y o hese goods and he pa h o ob aining hem (Hahn, 1982;S u ze & F ey,2006). Fu he mo e, communica i e in e ac ion be ween people, linguis ic exchange ins ead o comme cial exchange, is p ocedu al and can lead o Pa e o imp o emen s wi hou changing ou comes. These exchanges do no al e ma e ial well- being bu a ec subjec i e well-being. Thus, he u ili y can be conside ed a complex se o a leas ou componen s: ou come IU, ou come HU, p ocedu al, and communica i e u ili y. Equa ion (2) o malises he u ili y unc ion in o a ou -componen o m as a gued, whe e U i,o is he IU om he ou come, ollowed by h ee HU: U h,o om he ou come, U h,p e e s o p ocedu e, and Uh,com he communica i e. U=Ui,o+Uh,o+Uh,p +Uh,com (2) Classical u ili a ian heo ies ha ocus p ima ily on U h,o neglec s able le els o ma- e ial well-being U i,o, he ele ance o p ocedu es U h,p , and he ole o ela ional and communica i e goods Uh,com. Simila ly, adi ional wel a ism isks assessing quali y o li e solely based on angible and pe cei ed ou comes, igno ing pa hways and ela ionships Uh,com. 4.2. Ou come and P ocedu al U ili y I we do no conside he goods achie ed in he ou come as he only sou ce o u ili y, we mus also examine he ypes o well-being ha a e no de i ed om ou comes (Kamini z, 2017). Indeed, people also alue he p ocedu es ha lead o he ou comes (F ey,2004). Hahn, o example, p oposes h ee examples in which he same ou come can be achie ed h ough di e en pa hs: choosing o being o ced o ake a job wi h ce ain cha ac e is ics and emune a ion, choosing o being o ced o pa icipa e in a dange ous mili a y mission, and choosing o being o ced o alloca e pa o one’s income o a cha i able cause (Hahn, 1982). In all hese cases, he ou comes a e iden ical, bu he p ocess ha made hem possible changes. E en i indi iduals chose he same op ions, i is in ui i ely accep able ha hey would p e e o a i e he e h ough ee a he han compulso y ac ion. Acco dingly, an indi idual’s u ili y unc ion depends no only on he goods ob ained Q h ough an ac ion A, ha is Ui=Ui(Qi(A)) bu also on he u ili y de i ed om he ac ion i sel , which can be o malised as Ui=Ui(A,Qi(A)) : Fo ins ance, he classical G eek he o who olun a ily sac i ices himsel in ba le o de end his polis is a pa adigma ic case in which he hedonic u ili y o he ac ion i sel exceeds he disu ili y, hedonic and o he wise, o he loss o li e i sel . The same canno be said o he Wo ld Wa I in an yman sen , by his commande s, o die in u ile assaul s. Economies 2025,13, 283 9 o 20 Remo ing he possibili y o choice changes he u ili y, e en i he goods ob ained e- main unchanged. While no a adical change, he in oduc ion o PU could ha e signi ican implica ions o he analysis o wel a e economics and he e ec i eness o wel a e sys ems. 4.3. Hedonic and Ins umen al U ili y The u ili y o au onomy is one o se e al possible o ms o PU, and some ecen de elopmen s a e wo h conside ing since indi iduals e alua e ac ual ou comes and also he condi ions and p ocesses ha lead o hem (F ey & S u ze ,2000). The economic concep o u ili y is ou come-o ien ed, whe e indi idual u ili y is seen in e ms o he bene i s and cos s associa ed wi h ins umen al ou comes. In con as , PU e e s o p ocesses’ non- ins umen al, posi i e, and nega i e sa is ac ion. The au ho s highligh PU’s psychological na u e, con as ing i wi h IU, cha ac e ising he ou come; PU emphasises he u ili y’s hedonic con en . They also link he concep o PU o he sense o sel and sel -es eem, which in luence people’s well-being and a e condi ioned by decision-making p ocesses and in e ac ions wi h ins i u ions and o he indi iduals. This can be summa ised as a dual concep ion o u ili y, which, s a ing om he concep in (F ey & S u ze ,2000) is depic ed in Figu e 2. Figu e 2. Hedonic PU and he OU. Sou ce: he au ho s. While we ag ee wi h he dis inc ion highligh ed in Figu e 2and he impo ance o he well-being de i ed om he ea men indi iduals expe ience wi hin ins i u ionalised p o- cesses, we belie e he scheme can be implemen ed as depic ed in Figu e 3(Implemen a ion o he dis inc ion o u ili y e e ed o in Figu e 2, wi h he addi ion o ou o he ypes o u ili y ha in luence human well-being). This scheme includes he di e en ypes o u ili y ha can a ec human well-being, when well-being is unde s ood su icien ly b oadly and when he in e ac ions among indi iduals and be ween indi iduals and ins i u ions a e conside ed. A dis inc ion is made be ween p ocedu al, ins umen al, hedonic, and o he o ms o u ili y ela ed o in e ac ions be ween indi iduals and ins i u ions. Figu e 3 e ains he dis inc ion be ween he u ili ies in oduced in Figu e 2(le el 2) and ou a e added. I should be no ed ha he diag am is in ended o ep esen only he wel a e e ec s ha acc ue o an indi idual as a esul o ac ions, while, in gene al, i is clea ha e en hough s ha do no ansla e in o ac ions a e capable o gene a ing hedonic e ec s, bo h posi i e and nega i e. Ac ions ha can in luence a pe son’s well-being all in o di e en ca ego ies based on who unde akes hem: he same bene icia y o he wel a e e ec , a collec i e ins i u ion, a di e en pe son wi h whom he e a e a ec i e links, such as o en ail an in e dependence o u ili ies. In he i s case, i.e., bene icia y, he u ili y can be u he sepa a ed in o he ollowing ypes: • PU a ises om he me hod selec ed o ac , as ou lined in Figu e 3(U1). Conside he ask o lawn mowing: an indi idual can ei he pe o m he ask pe sonally o ou sou ce i , e.g., pay o a ga den main enance se ice. I he indi idual expe iences Economies 2025,13, 283 16 o 20 p ocedu es ha lead o hose ou comes, especially in he e ealed p e e ence app oach, whe e u ili y is in e p e ed as a o mal ep esen a ion o choices. Wi hou in es iga ing subjec i e mo i a ions, his app oach allows consume s o in eg a e hei ou come’s ch ema is ic and hedonic componen s in o hei e alua ions. Howe e , i igno es PU by ailing o conside wha is no di ec ly e lec ed in ou comes, and his becomes p oblema ic when he heo y e e s o public choices. In o he a eas, p ocedu al componen s, such as communica i e ones, may be cen al o assessing well- being. In his sense, he choices do no always e lec he s a es ha maximise o e all u ili y. Fo example, an indi idual may p e e ou come X o s a e Y, no because X is be e , bu because Y in ol es a p ocedu al iola ion. This calls in o ques ion he assump ion o a double bind be ween choices, p e e ences, and well-being. Equa ing choice wi h consen is misleading: an agen may choose one ou come o e ano he wi hou consen ing o he i s , e.g., when choices a e imposed. P e e ences can be desc ibed so ha hei co espondence wi h choices is p ese ed, o o keep hem in line wi h well-being as unde s ood by he indi idual in ques ion; howe e , i is no gene ally possible o gua an ee bo h simul aneously. I is easonable o assume ha , all o he hings being equal, an indi idual p e e s a mo e use ul ou come and ha hei choices e lec hese p e e ences. Howe e , i canno be assumed ha p e e ences–choices and p e e ences–well-being always coincide, especially in he p esence o p ocedu al e ec s. Schola s employ many empi ical app oaches o ob ain in o ma ion on well-being (Boswo h e al.,2024). Consis en ly, he happiness and economics app oach eco e s a hedonic concep ion o u ili y by di ec ly measu ing subjec i e well-being using su eys widely used in con empo a y esea ch (Dziechcia z,2024). Ou a gumen is wo old: i s , o eco e he dis inc ion be ween CU and HU; sec- ond, o ex end he no ion o PU om ins i u ionalised con ex s o indi idual ac ions and in e subjec i e ela ionships. Bo h ex ensions open up in e p e a i e spaces in es ablished economic heo ies. Exis ing heo e ical co ne s ones o economics, such as expec ed u ili y heo y and game heo y, gene ally de ine p e e ences in e ms o mone a y gains and, in any case, achie able ou comes. The idea ha ou comes a e he only u ili y sou ce and he sole d i e o beha iou has become a e in economics. Ye indi iduals also ca e abou how ou comes a e gene a ed; hese p ocess p e e ences gene a e PU. The econs uc ion o he concep ual e olu ion o u ili y shows ha each le el adds speci ic implica ions. The objec i e dimension highligh s he ole o basic needs and unde pins a gumen s abou edis ibu ion and wel a e gua an ees. The subjec i e dimension emphasises he he e o- genei y o indi idual p e e ences; o his ex en , he e is e idence o p e e ence con o mism (Fa as e al.,2018) and he cen ali y o sa is ac ion. The p ocedu al dimension e eals how decisions a e made, and he esul ing ecogni ion can gene a e u ili y. The dis inc ion be ween OU and PU, he e o e, in i es us o econside he alidi y o OU as a su icien basis o collec i e choices, a alidi y ha appea s weakened once p ocedu al aspec s a e acknowledged. A he same ime, he dis inc ion be ween CU and HU aises u he ques- ions abou he legi imacy o collec i e choices made by coe ci e ins i u ions. Recognising he p io i y o CU, linked o he sa is ac ion o basic needs, p o ides a s onge jus i ica ion o edis ibu i e policies han he u ili a ian amewo k elying solely on he hypo hesis o dec easing ma ginal u ili y o income. On he one hand, he s a e gene a es u ili y h ough ins i u ional p ocesses; on he o he hand, i axa ion and wel a e sys ems a e adequa ely de ined, i p oduces edis ibu i e e ec s ha ans o m he mainly HU o axpaye s in o he mainly CU o bene icia ies. Since Bisma ck and ea ly 20 h-cen u y social libe alism, wel a e sys ems ha e always aimed o sa is y he essen ial, and he e o e ma e ial, needs o he mos disad an aged classes, a he han o gene a e HU o hem as a subs i u e o Economies 2025,13, 283 17 o 20 ma ke choices hey canno a o d. These pe spec i es sugges ha public policy design bene i s om ecognising ou comes, p ocesses and symbolic aspec s o choices. 7. Conclusions By add essing he concep ual agmen a ion ha cha ac e ises he deba e on u ili y, we discussed how di e en heo e ical adi ions ha e in e p e ed u ili y and well-being, he con e gences and di e gences in he con empo a y li e a u e, and he co esponding public policy implica ions. Despi e he plu ali y o app oaches, i is possible o iden i y common elemen s and complemen a i ies ha p o ide a basis o cohe en e lec ion. F om an academic poin o iew, his cla i ies he heo e ical ounda ions o he concep o u ili y; om a p ac ical poin o iew, i sugges s ha policies, beside sho e m ou comes, should ocus on building s uc u al condi ions o indi idual and collec i e well-being. Reco e ing he dis inc ion be ween CU and HU p inciples while acknowledging he ole o PU p o ides use ul in e p e a i e ools and s eng hens he jus i ica ion o public policies. F om a public policy pe spec i e, we poin ou ha well-de ined ins i u ions, dis ibu i e jus ice, and wel a e sys ems, play a ema kable ole in ans o ming axpaye s’ HU in o he CU o bene icia ies, enhancing, in u n, he e ec i eness and e iciency o public polices. Au ho Con ibu ions: The au ho s join ly con ibu ed o he a icle concep ualiza ion, o mal analysis, and w i ing. All au ho s ha e ead and ag eed o he published e sion o he manusc ip . Funding: This esea ch ecei ed no ex e nal unding. Ins i u ional Re iew Boa d S a emen : No applicable. In o med Consen S a emen : No applicable. Da a A ailabili y S a emen : No applicable. Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es . Re e ences Achime, N. H. (1990). Book e iew: Human desi e and economic sa is ac ion. Re iew o Radical Poli ical Economics,22(2–3), 296–298. [C ossRe ] Adle , M. D., Dolan, P., & Ka e sos, G. (2017). Would you choose o be happy? T adeo s be ween happiness and he o he dimensions o li e in a la ge popula ion su ey. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza ion,139, 60–73. [C ossRe ] Angne , E. (2011). A e subjec i e measu es o well-being ‘di ec ’? Aus alasian Jou nal o Philosophy,89(1), 115–130. [C ossRe ] A ksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping s udies: Towa ds a me hodological amewo k. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Resea ch Me hodology,8(1), 19–32. [C ossRe ] Ba ley, R. (2007). On o dinal u ili y, ca dinal u ili y and andom u ili y. Theo y and Decision,64(1), 37–63. [C ossRe ] Beca ini, G. (2018). Pan aleoni, ma eo (18571924) (pp. 10009–10010). Palg a e Macmillan UK. [C ossRe ] Ben ham, J. (1996). The collec ed wo ks o Je emy Ben ham: An in oduc ion o he p inciples o mo als and legisla ion (J. H. Bu ns, & H. L. A. Ha , Eds.). Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. [C ossRe ] Blaug, M. (1993). The meaning o he ma ke p ocess: Essays in he de elopmen o mode n Aus ian economics. The Economic Jou nal, 103(418), 757–758. [C ossRe ] Boswo h, S. J., Gimenez-Nadal, J. I., & Se illa, A. (2024). Pa en al ime in es men s and ins an aneous well-being in he Uni ed S a es. Sco ish Jou nal o Poli ical Economy,72(1), e12402. [C ossRe ] B ennan, J. (2018). Libe a ianism a e Nozick. Philosophy Compass,13(2), e12485. [C ossRe ] B ennan, T. J. (1989). A me hodological assessmen o mul iple u ili y amewo ks. Economics and Philosophy,5(2), 189–208. [C ossRe ] B oome, J. (1991). “U ili y”. Economics and Philosophy,7(1), 1–12. [C ossRe ] B u on, H. J. (1989). Human desi e and economic sa is ac ion. Tibo sci o sky. Economic De elopmen and Cul u al Change,37(2), 440–443. [C ossRe ] Cappelen, A. W., Moene, K. O., Sø ensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2013). Needs e sus en i lemen s-an in e na ional ai ness expe imen . Jou nal o he Eu opean Economic Associa ion,11(3), 574–598. [C ossRe ] Cap a o, V., Di Paolo, R., Pe c, M., & Pizziol, V. (2024a). Language-based game heo y in he age o a i icial in elligence. Jou nal o he Royal Socie y In e ace,21(212), 20230720. [C ossRe ] [PubMed] Economies 2025,13, 283 18 o 20 Cap a o, V., Halpe n, J. Y., & Pe c, M. (2024b). F om ou come-based o language-based p e e ences. Jou nal o Economic Li e a u e,62(1), 115–154. [C ossRe ] Colande , D. (2007). Re ospec i es: Edgewo h’s hedonime e and he ques o measu e u ili y. Jou nal o Economic Pe spec i es,21(2), 215–225. [C ossRe ] Colla d, D., & Sen, A. (1984). Choice, wel a e and measu emen . The Economic Jou nal,94(374), 409. [C ossRe ] Cos a, A., Vi es, M., & Co ey, J. D. (2017). On language p ocessing shaping decision making. Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 146–151. [C ossRe ] C emaschi, S. (2004). Rica do and he u ili a ians. The Eu opean Jou nal o he His o y o Economic Though ,11(3), 377–403. [C ossRe ] C espo, R. F. (2020). On money as a con en ional sign: Re isi ing A is o le’s concep ion o money. Jou nal o Ins i u ional Economics, 17(3), 459–471. [C ossRe ] Dziechcia z, M. (2024). Panel da a analysis o subjec i e well-being in Eu opean coun ies in he yea s 2013–2022. Sus ainabili y,16(5), 2124. [C ossRe ] Eas e lin, R. A. (2004). The economics o happiness. Daedalus,133(2), 26–33. [C ossRe ] Fabian, M., Alexand o a, A., Coyle, D., Aga wala, M., & Felici, M. (2022). Respec ing he subjec in wellbeing public policy: Beyond he social planne pe spec i e. Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy,30(8), 1494–1517. [C ossRe ] Falk, A., Becke , A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Hu man, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global e idence on economic p e e ences. The Qua e ly Jou nal o Economics,133(4), 1645–1692. [C ossRe ] Fa as, E., Ha g ea es Heap, S. P., & Rojo A jona, D. (2018). P e e ence con o mism: An expe imen . Eu opean Economic Re iew,105, 71–82. [C ossRe ] Faus o, D. (2008). The Pa e ian school o hough in I aly. His o y o Economics Re iew,48(1), 101–110. [C ossRe ] Flux, A. W., Pan aleoni, M., & B uce, T. B. (1898). Pu e economics. The Economic Jou nal,8(31), 355. [C ossRe ] F ey, B. S. (2004). Beyond ou comes: Measu ing p ocedu al u ili y. Ox o d Economic Pape s,57(1), 90–111. [C ossRe ] F ey, B. S., & S u ze , A. (2000). Happiness, economy and ins i u ions. The Economic Jou nal,110(466), 918–938. [C ossRe ] Gal in, K. T., & Tod es, L. (2011). Kinds o well-being: A concep ual amewo k ha p o ides di ec ion o ca ing. In e na ional Jou nal o Quali a i e S udies on Heal h and Well-Being,6(4), 10362. [C ossRe ] [PubMed] Gamal, Y., Pin o, N., & Iossi o a, D. (2023). The ole o p ocedu al u ili y in land ma ke dynamics in g ea e Cai o: An agen based model applica ion. En i onmen and Planning B: U ban Analy ics and Ci y Science,51(4), 954–970. [C ossRe ] Gomes, O. (2024). U ili y unde he da k e ad. Jou nal o Economics, Finance and Adminis a i e Science,30(59), 22–40. [C ossRe ] Hahn, F. (1982). On some di icul ies o he u ili a ian economis (pp. 187–198). Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. [C ossRe ] Hands, D. W. (2014). Paul Samuelson and e ealed p e e ence heo y. His o y o Poli ical Economy,46(1), 85–116. [C ossRe ] Hasle , D. W. (1990). Wha is u ili y? Economics and Philosophy,6(1), 65–94. [C ossRe ] Hende son, L. W., Knigh , T., & Richa dson, B. (2013). An explo a ion o he well-being bene i s o hedonic and eudaimonic beha iou . The Jou nal o Posi i e Psychology,8(4), 322–336. [C ossRe ] Hou hakke , H. S. (1950). Re ealed p e e ence and he u ili y unc ion. Economica,17(66), 159. [C ossRe ] Hu a, V. (2016). Eudaimonic and hedonic o ien a ions: Theo e ical conside a ions and esea ch indings (pp. 215–231). Sp inge In e na ional Publishing. [C ossRe ] Joshanloo, M., Jo ano i´c, V., & Pa k, J. (2020). Di e en ial ela ionships o hedonic and eudaimonic well-being wi h sel -con ol and long- e m o ien a ion1. Japanese Psychological Resea ch,63(1), 47–57. [C ossRe ] Kahneman, D., Kne sch, J. L., & Thale , R. H. (2011). Fai ness as a cons ain on p o i seeking (pp. 252–270). P ince on Uni e si y P ess. [C ossRe ] Kahneman, D., & K uege , A. B. (2006). De elopmen s in he measu emen o subjec i e well-being. Jou nal o Economic Pe spec i es, 20(1), 3–24. [C ossRe ] Kamini z, S. C. (2017). Con empo a y p ocedu al u ili y and Hume’s ea ly idea o u ili y. Jou nal o Happiness S udies,20(1), 269–282. [C ossRe ] Ka z, I., & Asso , A. (2006). When choice mo i a es and when i does no . Educa ional Psychology Re iew,19(4), 429–442. [C ossRe ] Kjosa ik, D. J. (2003). Me hodological indi idualism and a ional choice in neoclassical economics: A e iew o ins i u ionalis c i ique. Fo um o De elopmen S udies,30(2), 205–245. [C ossRe ] Laya d, R., May az, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The ma ginal u ili y o income. Jou nal o Public Economics,92(8–9), 1846–1857. [C ossRe ] Le ac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’B ien, K. K. (2010). Scoping s udies: Ad ancing he me hodology. Implemen a ion Science,5(1), 69. [C ossRe ] Magalhães, P. C. (2016). Economic e alua ions, p ocedu al ai ness, and sa is ac ion wi h democ acy. Poli ical Resea ch Qua e ly,69(3), 522–534. [C ossRe ] Ma hias, N., & Rendon Te esa, H. (2006). A he meneu ic o Ama ya Sen’s concep o capabili y. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Economics, 33(10), 710–722. [C ossRe ] McLu e, M. (2000). The Pa e o-Sco za polemic on collec i e economic wel a e. Aus alian Economic Pape s,39(3), 347–371. [C ossRe ] Economies 2025,13, 283 19 o 20 McLu e, M. (2008). Vil edo pa e o, 1906 Manuale di economia poli ica, Edizione C i ica, Aldo Mon esano, Albe o Zanni and Luigino B uni (eds), (Milan: EGEAUni e si àbocconi edi o e, 2006) pp. XXII, 706, $66. ISBN 88-8350-084-9. Jou nal o he His o y o Economic Though ,30(1), 137–140. [C ossRe ] Mill, J. S. (2010). The p inciples o poli ical economy. In The Two Na a i es o Poli ical Economy (pp. 295–344). Sc i ene Publishing LLC. [C ossRe ] Millg am, E. (2000). Wha ’s he use o u ili y? Philosophy & Public A ai s,29(2), 113–136. [C ossRe ] Mosca i, I. (2013). We e Je ons, Menge , and Wal as eally ca dinalis s? On he no ion o measu emen in u ili y heo y, psychology, ma hema ics, and o he disciplines, 1870–1910. His o y o Poli ical Economy,45(3), 373–414. [C ossRe ] Ne , K. D. (2011). Sel -compassion, sel -es eem, and well-being. Social and Pe sonali y Psychology Compass,5(1), 1–12. [C ossRe ] Nikolo a, M. (2016). Minding he happiness gap: Poli ical ins i u ions and pe cei ed quali y o li e in ansi ion. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Economy,45, 129–148. [C ossRe ] Panche a, M. G., Ry , C. D., & Lucchini, M. (2020). An in eg a ed look a well-being: Topological clus e ing o combina ions and co ela es o hedonia and eudaimonia. Jou nal o Happiness S udies,22(5), 2275–2297. [C ossRe ] Pe ei a, M. C., Coelho, F., & Sil a, G. M. (2023). Is he e a happy cul u e? Mul iple pa hs o na ional subjec i e well-being. Kyklos,76(4), 613–641. [C ossRe ] Ram a an, L., & Szenbe g, M. (2021). In oduc ion and gene al o e iew o economic happiness (pp. 1–16). Edwa d Elga Publishing. [C ossRe ] Rica do, D. (2014). On he p inciples o poli ical economy, and axa ion. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess (CUP). [C ossRe ] Robinson, A., & S a a, P. (1951). The wo ks and co espondence o Da id Rica do. Volume i: On he p inciples o poli ical economy and axa ion. The Economic Jou nal,61(244), 848. [C ossRe ] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human po en ials: A e iew o esea ch on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Re iew o Psychology,52(1), 141–166. [C ossRe ] [PubMed] Samuels, W. J. (1992). Edgewo h’s ma hema ical psychics: A cen ennial no ice (pp. 167–175). Palg a e Macmillan. [C ossRe ] Schwa z, B., & Cheek, N. N. (2017). Choice, eedom, and well-being: Conside a ions o public policy. Beha iou al Public Policy,1(1), 106–121. [C ossRe ] Seigel, J. E., Napoleoni, C., & Gee., J. M. A. (1977). Smi h, Rica do, Ma x. The Ame ican His o ical Re iew,82(1), 63. [C ossRe ] Semeno , A., & Nedeljko i´c, Z. (2023). Th ee concep s o happiness: F om ancien G eece o mode n sciences. Poli ea,13(26), 25–37. [C ossRe ] Sen, A. (1991). U ili y: Ideas and e minology.Economics and Philosophy,7(2), 277–283. [C ossRe ] Sen, A. (2006). Reason, eedom and well-being. U ili as,18(1), 80–96. [C ossRe ] Seol, M., & Kim, Y. (2022). Hedonic consump ion and consume ’s choice unde he wind all gains. Jou nal o Ko ea Socie y o Indus ial In o ma ion Sys ems,27(2), 83–100. [C ossRe ] Shao, A., & Li, H. (2021). How do u ili a ian e sus hedonic p oduc s in luence choice p e e ences: Media ing e ec o social compa ison. Psychology & Ma ke ing,38(8), 1250–1261. [C ossRe ] Shizgal, P. (2012). Sca ce means wi h al e na i e uses: Robbins’ de ini ion o economics and i s ex ension o he beha io al and neu obiological s udy o animal decision making. F on ie s in Neu oscience,6, 20. [C ossRe ] Sidgwick, H. (2011). The me hods o e hics. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess (CUP). [C ossRe ] Sky ms, B., & Na ens, L. (2018). Measu ing he hedonime e . Philosophical S udies,176(12), 3199–3210. [C ossRe ] Sonnabend, H. (2016). Fai ness cons ain s on p o i -seeking: E idence om he Ge man club conce indus y. Jou nal o Cul u al Economics,40(4), 529–545. [C ossRe ] S eele, G. R. (2006). Richa d Laya d’s happiness: Wo n philosophy, weak psychology, w ong me hod and jus plain bad economics! The Poli ical Qua e ly,77(4), 484–492. [C ossRe ] S u ze , A., & F ey, B. S. (2006). Does ma iage make people happy, o do happy people ge ma ied? The Jou nal o Socio-Economics, 35(2), 326–347. [C ossRe ] Sung, H., & Phillips, R. G. (2018). Indica o s and communi y well-being: Explo ing a ela ional amewo k. In e na ional Jou nal o Communi y Well-Being,1(1), 63–79. [C ossRe ] Suzuki, K., & Demi cioglu, M. A. (2020). Is impa iali y enough? Go e nmen impa iali y and ci izens’ pe cep ions o public se ice quali y. Go e nance,34(3), 727–764. [C ossRe ] Ven u a, A., Ca ie o, C., & Mon ibelle , M. (2016). Pa e o e iciency, he Coase heo em, and ex e nali ies: A c i ical iew. Jou nal o Economic Issues,50(3), 872–895. [C ossRe ] Vidal, A., Cos a, A., & Fouca , A. (2021). A e ou p e e ences and e alua ions condi ioned by he language con ex ? Jou nal o Mul ilingual and Mul icul u al De elopmen ,45(2), 408–426. [C ossRe ] Viglia olo, F. (2020). Towa ds an on ological eason law in economics: P inciples and ounda ions. Insigh s in o Regional De elopmen , 2(4), 784–801. [C ossRe ] [PubMed] Economies 2025,13, 283 20 o 20 Win ey, J. C. (1993). De ailing alue heo y: Adam smi h and he A is o elian adi ion. Jou nal o he His o y o Economic Though ,15(2), 301–319. [C ossRe ] Wi , U. (2016). The ans o ma ions o u ili y heo y: A beha io al pe spec i e. Jou nal o Bioeconomics,18(3), 211–228. [C ossRe ] Yang, L. (2018). Measu ing well-being: A mul idimensional index in eg a ing subjec i e well-being and p e e ences. Jou nal o Human De elopmen and Capabili ies,19(4), 456–476. [C ossRe ] Disclaime /Publishe ’s No e: The s a emen s, opinions and da a con ained in all publica ions a e solely hose o he indi idual au ho (s) and con ibu o (s) and no o MDPI and/o he edi o (s). MDPI and/o he edi o (s) disclaim esponsibili y o any inju y o people o p ope y esul ing om any ideas, me hods, ins uc ions o p oduc s e e ed o in he con en .