Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intergenerational Fairness

  • Chapter
Book cover Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability

Part of the book series: International Economic Association Series ((IEA))

Abstract

This chapter studies the construction of a criterion for the ethical evaluation of allocations in an overlapping generations model. Each generation is composed of individuals who live two periods and may have heterogeneous intertemporal preferences. Their preferences are self-centred and are supposed to be a correct embodiment of their true personal interests. As a consequence, the criterion is required to satisfy the Pareto criterion. In addition, two basic fairness requirements are imposed on the criterion. The first result is then that the asymmetric part (strict preference) of the criterion must apply the infimum criterion (a variant of the maximin criterion suitable for infinite populations) to a particular money-metric utility representation of individual preferences. The choice of this particular utility measure is a consequence of the fairness requirements.

This chapter is dedicated to Philippe Michel. It originates in a discussion with him and it would have been much better if it could have been co-written with him. It has benefitted from very helpful comments by T. Shinotsuka and from the reactions of participants at the International Economic Association Conference in Hakone. The hospitality of Nuffield College, Oxford, where this chapter was written, is gratefully acknowledged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values ( New York: Wiley).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1973)’Rawls’s Principle of Just Saving’, Swedish Journal of Economics, vol. 75, pp. 323–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. B. (1991) ‘Unjust Intergenerational Allocations’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 54, pp. 350–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. B. and Tungodden, B. (2004a) ‘Do Koopmans Postulates Lead to Discounted Utilitarianism?’, Discussion paper 32/04, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. B. and Tungodden, B. (2004b) ‘Resolving Distributional Conflicts between Generations’, Economic Theory, vol. 24, pp. 221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. B. and Tungodden, B. (2005) ‘A New Equity Condition for Infinite Utility Streams and the Possibility of Being Paretian’, mimeo, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K. and Mitra, T. (2003) ‘Aggregating Infinite Utility Streams with Intergenerational Equity: The Impossibility of Being Paretian’, Econometrica, vol. 71, pp. 1557–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, W., Sprumont, Y. and Suzumura, K. (2004) ‘The Possibility of Ordering Infinite Utility Streams’, Cahiers CIREQ 12–2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourbaki, N. (1961) Topologie Générale ( Paris: Hermann).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A. (1970) ‘On Existence of Weakly Maximal Programmes in a Multisector Economy’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37, pp. 275–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. S. (1974) ‘On Some Alternative Criteria for Justice between Generations’, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 3, pp. 415–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. (1965) ‘The Evaluation of Infinite Utility Streams’, Econometrica, vol. 33, pp. 170–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. (2004) ‘Two Criteria for Social Decisions’, Nuffield College Economics Working Paper 2004 - W27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. (2005) ‘The Pazner-Schmeidler Ordering: A Defense’, Review of Economic Design, vol. 9, pp. 145–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and F. Maniquet (2006) ‘Utilitarianism versus Fairness in Welfare Economics’, in M. Salles and J. A. Weymark (eds), Justice, Political Liberalism and Utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and F. Maniquet (1999) ‘Compensation and Responsibility’, in K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, K. Suzumura (eds), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 2 ( Amsterdam: North-Holland ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and F. Maniquet (2005) ‘Fair Social Orderings when Agents Have Unequal Production Skills’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24, pp. 93–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and P. Michel (2003) ‘Intertemporal Equity and the Extension of the Ramsey Criterion’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 39, pp. 777–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M., K. Suzumura and K. Tadenuma (2003) ‘Arrovian Aggregation in Eco-nomic Environments: How Much Should We Know about Indifference Surfaces?’,Journal of Economic Theory in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. and A. Trannoy (2003) ‘The Impossibility of a Paretian Egalitarian’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21, pp. 243–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, D. (1967) ‘On Optimal Development in a Multi-sector Economy’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 34, pp. 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirman, A. P. and D. Sondermann (1972) ‘Arrow’s Theorem, Many Agents and Invisible Dictators’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 5, pp. 267–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S. C. (1972) Justice et équité ( Paris: CNRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. C. (1965) ‘On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth’, in The Econometric Approach to Development Planning, Pouti ficiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia, vol. 28, pp. 225–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, L. (1995) ‘Time-neutrality and Linearity’, Journal or Mathematical Economics, vol. 24, pp. 347–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, L. (1997a) ‘Continuity and Equity with Infinite Horizons’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14, pp. 345–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, L. (1997b) ‘Rawlsian Equity and Generalised Utilitarianism with an Infinite Population’, Economic Theory, vol. 9, pp. 143–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, L. (1998) ‘Intertemporal Objective Functions. Strong Pareto versus Anonymity’, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol. 35, pp. 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauwers, L. and L. Van Liedekerke (1995) ‘Ultraproducts and Aggregation’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 24, pp. 217–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maniquet, F. and Y. Sprumont (2004) ‘Fair Production and Allocation of an Excludable Nonrival Good’, Econometrica, vol. 72, pp. 627–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monjardet, B. (1983) ‘On the use of Ultrafilters in Social Choice Theory’, in P. K. Pattanaik and M. Salles (eds), Social Choice and Welfare ( Amsterdam: North-Holland ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazner, E. and D. Schmeidler (1978) ‘Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: New Concept of Economic Equity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 92, pp. 671–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. P. (1928) ‘A Mathematical Theory of Savings’, Economic Journal, vol. 38,pp. 543–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E and R. Veneziani (2003) ‘What We Owe Our Children, They Their Children…’, Journal of Public Economic Theory, vol. 6(5), pp. 637–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, T. (2003) ‘Intergenerational Preferences and Sensitivity to the Present’, Economics Bulletin, vol. 4, pp. 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, T. (2006) ‘Equitable intergenerational Preferences on Restricted Domains’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21, pp. 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinotsuka, T. (1998) ‘Equity, Continuity, and Myopia: A Generalization of Diamond’s Impossibility Theorem’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15, pp. 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzumura, K. and T. Shinotsuka (2003) ‘On the Possibility of Continuous, Paretian and Egalitarian evaluation of Infinite Utility Streams’, Mimeo, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, L. G. (1980) ‘Equity among Generations’, Econometrica, vol. 48, pp. 1251–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Long, N. (2007) ‘Toward a Just Savings Principle’, ch.15 in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. (1974) ‘Efficiency, Equity and Envy’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 9,pp. 63–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Marc Fleurbaey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Yale University, USA

    John Roemer

  2. Hitotsubashi University, Japan

    Kotaro Suzumura

Copyright information

© 2007 International Economic Association

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fleurbaey, M. (2007). Intergenerational Fairness. In: Roemer, J., Suzumura, K. (eds) Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230236769_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation