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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J. (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values ( New York: Wiley).
Arrow, K. J. (1973)’Rawls’s Principle of Just Saving’, Swedish Journal of Economics, vol. 75, pp. 323–35.
Asheim, G. B. (1991) ‘Unjust Intergenerational Allocations’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 54, pp. 350–71.
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.
Asheim, G. B. and Tungodden, B. (2004b) ‘Resolving Distributional Conflicts between Generations’, Economic Theory, vol. 24, pp. 221–30.
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.
Basu, K. and Mitra, T. (2003) ‘Aggregating Infinite Utility Streams with Intergenerational Equity: The Impossibility of Being Paretian’, Econometrica, vol. 71, pp. 1557–63.
Bossert, W., Sprumont, Y. and Suzumura, K. (2004) ‘The Possibility of Ordering Infinite Utility Streams’, Cahiers CIREQ 12–2004.
Bourbaki, N. (1961) Topologie Générale ( Paris: Hermann).
Brock, W. A. (1970) ‘On Existence of Weakly Maximal Programmes in a Multisector Economy’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 37, pp. 275–80.
Dasgupta, P. S. (1974) ‘On Some Alternative Criteria for Justice between Generations’, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 3, pp. 415–23.
Diamond, P. A. (1965) ‘The Evaluation of Infinite Utility Streams’, Econometrica, vol. 33, pp. 170–7.
Fleurbaey, M. (2004) ‘Two Criteria for Social Decisions’, Nuffield College Economics Working Paper 2004 - W27.
Fleurbaey, M. (2005) ‘The Pazner-Schmeidler Ordering: A Defense’, Review of Economic Design, vol. 9, pp. 145–6.
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 ).
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 ).
Fleurbaey, M. and F. Maniquet (2005) ‘Fair Social Orderings when Agents Have Unequal Production Skills’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24, pp. 93–127.
Fleurbaey, M. and P. Michel (2003) ‘Intertemporal Equity and the Extension of the Ramsey Criterion’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 39, pp. 777–802.
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.
Fleurbaey, M. and A. Trannoy (2003) ‘The Impossibility of a Paretian Egalitarian’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21, pp. 243–64.
Gale, D. (1967) ‘On Optimal Development in a Multi-sector Economy’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 34, pp. 1–18.
Kirman, A. P. and D. Sondermann (1972) ‘Arrow’s Theorem, Many Agents and Invisible Dictators’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 5, pp. 267–77.
Kolm, S. C. (1972) Justice et équité ( Paris: CNRS).
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.
Lauwers, L. (1995) ‘Time-neutrality and Linearity’, Journal or Mathematical Economics, vol. 24, pp. 347–51.
Lauwers, L. (1997a) ‘Continuity and Equity with Infinite Horizons’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14, pp. 345–56.
Lauwers, L. (1997b) ‘Rawlsian Equity and Generalised Utilitarianism with an Infinite Population’, Economic Theory, vol. 9, pp. 143–50.
Lauwers, L. (1998) ‘Intertemporal Objective Functions. Strong Pareto versus Anonymity’, Mathematical Social Sciences, vol. 35, pp. 37–55.
Lauwers, L. and L. Van Liedekerke (1995) ‘Ultraproducts and Aggregation’, Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 24, pp. 217–37.
Maniquet, F. and Y. Sprumont (2004) ‘Fair Production and Allocation of an Excludable Nonrival Good’, Econometrica, vol. 72, pp. 627–40.
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 ).
Pazner, E. and D. Schmeidler (1978) ‘Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: New Concept of Economic Equity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 92, pp. 671–87.
Ramsey, F. P. (1928) ‘A Mathematical Theory of Savings’, Economic Journal, vol. 38,pp. 543–59.
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.
Sakai, T. (2003) ‘Intergenerational Preferences and Sensitivity to the Present’, Economics Bulletin, vol. 4, pp. 1–6.
Sakai, T. (2006) ‘Equitable intergenerational Preferences on Restricted Domains’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21, pp. 47–54.
Shinotsuka, T. (1998) ‘Equity, Continuity, and Myopia: A Generalization of Diamond’s Impossibility Theorem’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15, pp. 21–30.
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.
Svensson, L. G. (1980) ‘Equity among Generations’, Econometrica, vol. 48, pp. 1251–6.
Van Long, N. (2007) ‘Toward a Just Savings Principle’, ch.15 in this volume.
Varian, H. (1974) ‘Efficiency, Equity and Envy’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 9,pp. 63–91.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230236769_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28344-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-23676-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)