On the equity-efficiency trade off in aggregating infinite utility streams

Banerjee, Kuntal

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.03.041

Cited by 31 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An alternative is to apply the axiom of Hammond Equity for the Future (HEF ), which is a weak consequentialist equity condition introduced by Asheim and Tungodden (2004) and analyzed by Asheim, Mitra and Tungodden (2007, 2009), Banerjee (2006 and Alcantud and García-Sanz (2008). HEF captures the following ethical intuition: a sacrifice by the present generation leading to a uniform gain for all future generations cannot yield a consumption stream that is less desirable in social evaluation if the present remains better off than the future even after the sacrifice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability and discounted utilitarianism in models of economic growth

Asheim¹,

Mitra²

2010

Mathematical Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discounted utilitarianism treats generations unequally and leads to seemingly unappealing consequences in some models of economic growth. Instead, this paper presents and applies sustainable discounted utilitarianism (SDU).SDU respects the interests of future generations and resolves intergenerational conflicts by imposing on discounted utilitarianism that the evaluation be insensitive to the interests of the present generation if the present is better off than the future. An SDU social welfare function always exists. We provide a convenient sufficient condition to identify SDU optima and apply SDU to two well-known models of economic growth.Keywords: intergenerational equity, sustainability, discounted utilitarianism, egalitarian consumption streams, efficiency, exhaustible resources JEL Classification Numbers: D63, D71, Q01 * We thank Wolfgang Buchholz and Bertil Tungodden for many discussions on this and related projects, two anonymous referees for valuable suggestions, and Christian Gollier and other seminar participants in Ascona, Milan, Toulouse and Trondheim for helpful comments. Asheim gratefully acknowledges the hospitality

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability and discounted utilitarianism in models of economic growth

Asheim¹,

Mitra²

2010

Mathematical Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Table , Proposition conveys statement †. Case ‡ is proven in Alcantud (). The Rawlsian criterion proves that § holds.…”

Section: Summary Of Results Conclusion and Relation To Prior Literamentioning

confidence: 68%

“…We can also report on the main results that arise when SWFs under the HEF axiom are investigated. For domains of utility streams of the form [0, 1] ℕ , Banerjee () proves that a property weaker than WD must be contradicted. Turning to the case Y ℕ with Y = ℕ*, Alcantud and García‐Sanz (), in their Proposition , prove that SP can be guaranteed by an explicit construction, and their Theorem proves that PP can be guaranteed by an anonymous construction, as well as that the dictatorship by the second (or third, fourth, …) generations verifies MON, WP and HEF.…”

Section: Summary Of Results Conclusion and Relation To Prior Literamentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluations of Infinite Utility Streams: Pareto Efficient and Egalitarian Axiomatics

Alcantud

García-Sanz

2013

Metroeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two factors influence the resolution of the conflict among infinite generations: the consistency/ethical postulates requested; and the utilities that each generation can possess. We contribute to qualifying the Basu-Mitra approach to this problem, that concerns social welfare functions. Firstly we examine efficiency and strengthened forms of Hammond Equity for the Future both when the feasible utilities are [0, 1] and natural numbers. This complements Banerjee (2006) and Alcantud and García-Sanz (2010). Secondly, we analyze the possibility of combining Pareto-efficiency and the spirit of the Hammond Equity principle for both specfications of the feasible utilities. Here the case study is richer since we analyze four different versions of this principle. We conclude that the Anonymity, Hammond Equity for the Future, and Hammond Equity ethics can be combined with weak specifications of the Pareto postulate at a time even through explicit social welfare functions.

show abstract

“…Condition WLD (Weak Lorenz Domination) For all 0 , 0 ∈ , if 0 and 0 are such that 0 T−1 weakly Lorenz dominates 0 T−1 and T = T for some T > 1, then 0 ⊁ 0 . 8 6 Condition HEF was introduced in a predecessor to this paper (Asheim and Tungodden 2004b) and has been analyzed by Banerjee (2006), Asheim et al (2007), Asheim and Mitra (2010), and Alcantud and García-Sanz (2010). 7 Under completeness, condition WHE corresponds to the standard "Hammond Equity" condition, where the premise implies 0 ≾ 0 .…”

Section: Condition Hef (Hammond Equity For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%