Efficient Nonanthropocentric Nature Protection
AbstractThis paper analyzes nature protection by a social planner under different ‘utilitarian’ social welfare functions. For that purpose we construct an integrated model of the economy and the ecosystem with explicit consideration of nonhuman species and with competition between human and nonhuman species for land and prey biomass. We characterize and compare the efficient allocations when social welfare is anthropocentric (only consumers have positive welfare weights), and when social welfare is nonanthropocentric (all species have positive welfare weights). Not surprisingly, biocentric social welfare calls for suspending all economic activities. It is more important, however, that both anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism make the case for nature protection through different channels. Our analysis suggests that one may dispense with the concept of nonanthropocentric social welfare provided that in the anthropocentric framework the consumers’ intrinsic valuation of nature is properly accounted for.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 1262.
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
anthropocentrism; biocentrism; welfare; nature protection;
Other versions of this item:
- D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
- Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Yew-Kwang Ng, 2003. "From preference to happiness: Towards a more complete welfare economics," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 307-350, March.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2003.
"A Microfoundation of Predator-Prey Dynamics,"
110-03, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
- Yew-Kwang Ng, 1999. "Utility, informed preference, or happiness: Following Harsanyi's argument to its logical conclusion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 197-216.
- Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
- Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Social Decisions," Working Papers in Economics 485, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2007.
"Pricing the ecosystem and taxing ecosystem services: a general equilibrium approach,"
128-07, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
- Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rüdiger, 2009. "Pricing the ecosystem and taxing ecosystem services: A general equilibrium approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1589-1616, July.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2007. "Pricing the Ecosystem and Taxing Ecosystem Services: A General Equilibrium Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 1991, CESifo Group Munich.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2005. "Ecosystem and Economy: An Integrated Dynamic General Equilibrium Approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 213-249, 09.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.