Skip to main content

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

  • 352 Accesses

Abstract

A social-evaluation functional assigns a social ranking of alternatives to each information profile in its domain. In the classical multi-profile model of social choice, profiles are restricted to welfare information: all non-welfare information is implicitly assumed to be fixed. Because of this, the conventional approach does not allow us to discern the way in which the functional makes use of non-welfare information. For that, multiple non-welfare profiles are needed. Blackorby, Bossert and Donaldson (2005a) analyze a framework in which non-welfare information may vary across information profiles. Each information profile includes a vector of individual utility functions which represent welfare information and a vector of functions which describe social and individual non-welfare information. See also Kelsey (1987) and Roberts (1980) for approaches to social choice where non-welfare information is explicitly modelled. A social-evaluation functional is welfarist if a single ordering of utility vectors, together with the utility information in a profile, is sufficient to rank all alternatives. The ordering of utility vectors is called a social-evaluation ordering. Welfarism is a consequence of three axioms: unlimited domain, Pareto indifference and binary independence of irrelevant alternatives. Unlimited domain requires that all logically possible profiles are in the domain of the functional.

We thank Geir Asheim, Peter Vallentyne and the participants of the 2005 IEA Conference for discussions and comments. Financial support through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

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

Access this chapter

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

  • Aczél, J. (1966) Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications (New York: Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, G. and W. Buchholz (2003) ‘The Malleability of Undiscounted Utilitarianism as a Criterion of Intergenerational Justice’, Economica, vol. 70, pp. 405–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (1995) ‘Intertemporal Population Ethics:Critical-level Utilitarian Principles’, Econometrica, vol. 63, pp. 1303–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (1997) ‘Birth-date Dependent Population Ethics: Critical-level Principles’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 77, pp. 260–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (1999) ‘Functional Equations and Population Ethics’, Aequationes Mathematicae, vol. 58, pp. 272–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (2000) ‘The Value of Limited Altruism’, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 95, pp. 37–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (2002) ‘Utilitarianism and the Theory of Justice’, in K. Arrow, A. Sen and K. Suzumura (eds), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1 ( Amsterdam: Elsevier ), pp. 543–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (2005a) ‘Multi-profile Welfarism: a Generalization’, Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24, pp. 253–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., W. Bossert and D. Donaldson (2005b) Population Issues in Social Choice Theory, Welfare Economics and Ethics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., D. Primont and R. Russell (1978) Duality, Separability, and Functional Structure: Theory and Economic Applications ( Amsterdam: North-Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1992) Counting the Cost of Global Warming ( Cambridge: White Horse).

    Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (2004) Weighing Lives, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. (1992) ‘Consequentialism implies a Zero Rate of Intergenerational Discount’, in P. Laslett and J. Fishkin (eds), Justice Between Age Groups and Generations ( New Haven: Yale University Press ), pp. 162–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. and D. Parfit (1992) ‘Against the Social Discount Rate’, in P. Laslett and J. Fishkin (eds), Justice Between Age Groups and Generations ( New Haven: Yale University Press ), pp. 144–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont, C. (2007) ‘Formal Welfarism and Intergenerational Equity’, ch. 8 in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont, C. and L. Gevers (1977) ‘Equity and the Informational Basis of Collective Choice’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 44, pp. 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1959) Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium ( New York: Wiley).

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1960) ‘Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory’, in K. Arrow, S. Karlin and P. Suppes (eds), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959: Proceedings (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M. (1952) ‘A Cardinal Concept of Welfare’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 66, pp. 366–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1991) ‘Utility and the Good’, in P. Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, ( Oxford: Blackwell ), pp. 241–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, W. (1968) ‘The Structure of Utility Functions’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 32, pp. 369–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsey, D. (1987) ‘The Role of Information in Social Welfare Judgements’, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 39, pp. 301–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. (1960) ‘Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience’, Econometrica, vol. 28, pp. 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskin, E. (1978) ‘A Theorem on Utilitarianism’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 45, pp. 93–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. (1980) ‘Interpersonal Comparability and Social Choice Theory’, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 47, pp. 421–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P. (1966) ‘Some Formal Models of Grading Principles’, Synthèse, vol. 6, pp. 284–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2007 International Economic Association

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., Donaldson, D. (2007). Intertemporal Social Evaluation. In: Roemer, J., Suzumura, K. (eds) Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230236769_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics