Some, such as economists in the tradition of

the Austrian School, doubt whether

a cardinal utility function, or cardinal social
welfare function, is of any value. The reason
given is that it is difficult to aggregate the
utilities of various people that have differing
marginal utility of money, such as the wealthy
and the poor.
Also, the economists of the Austrian School
question the relevance of Pareto optimal
allocation considering situations where the
framework of means and ends is not perfectly
known, since neoclassical theory always
assumes that the ends-means framework is
perfectly defined.
The value of ordinal utility functions has been
questioned. Economists have proposed other
means of measuring well-being as an
alternative to price indices like willingness to
pay using revealed or stated preference
method. This includes subjective well-
being functions based on individuals' ratings
of their happiness or life satisfaction rather
than on their preferences.
Price-based measures are seen as
promoting consumerism and productivism by
many. It is possible to do welfare economics
without the use of prices; however, this is not
always done. Value assumptions explicit in
the social welfare function used and implicit in
the efficiency criterion chosen tend to make
welfare economics a normative and perhaps
subjective field. This can make it
controversial. However, perhaps most
significant of all are concerns about the limits
of a utilitarian approach to welfare economics.
According to this line of argument, utility is not
the only thing that matters and so a
comprehensive approach to welfare
economics should include other factors.
The capability approach is a theoretical
framework that entails two core normative
claims: first, the claim that the freedom to
achieve well-being is of primary moral
importance, and second, that freedom to
achieve well-being is to be understood in
terms of people's capabilities, that is, their real
opportunities to do and be what they have
reason to value.