IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-03d60001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intergenerational preferences and sensitivity to the present

Author

Listed:
  • Toyotaka Sakai

    (Department of Economics, University of Rochester)

Abstract

This paper discusses the existence of binary relations on the set of intergenerational welfare paths in an infinite horizon setting. We show that any binary relation that satisfies anonymity and sup norm continuity is not sensitive to changes in welfare levels of the present generations. This result generalizes the impossibility theorems by Diamond [Econometrica 33 (1965) 170-177] and Sakai [Social Choice and Welfare, 16 (2003) 176-167].

Suggested Citation

  • Toyotaka Sakai, 2003. "Intergenerational preferences and sensitivity to the present," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(26), pages 1-5.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-03d60001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2003/Volume4/EB-03D60001A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toyotaka Sakai, 2006. "Equitable Intergenerational Preferences on Restricted Domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 41-54, August.
    2. Fleurbaey, Marc & Michel, Philippe, 2003. "Intertemporal equity and the extension of the Ramsey criterion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 777-802, September.
    3. Luc Lauwers, 1997. "Continuity and equity with infinite horizons," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 14(2), pages 345-356.
    4. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "An axiomatic approach to sustainable development," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(2), pages 231-257, April.
    5. Luc Lauwers, 1996. "Rawlsian equity and generalised utilitarianism with an infinite population (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 143-150.
    6. Toyotaka Sakai, 2003. "An axiomatic approach to intergenerational equity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(1), pages 167-176.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Alcantud, 2013. "Liberal approaches to ranking infinite utility streams: when can we avoid interference?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 381-396, July.
    2. José Carlos R. Alcantud & María D. García-Sanz, 2013. "Evaluations of Infinite Utility Streams: Pareto Efficient and Egalitarian Axiomatics," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 432-447, July.
    3. Mabrouk, Mohamed, 2006. "Allais-anonymity as an alternative to the discounted-sum criterion in the calculus of optimal growth I: Consensual optimality," MPRA Paper 10512, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Geir B. Asheim & Tapan Mitra & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "A New Equity Condition for Infinite Utility Streams and the Possibility of being Paretian," International Economic Association Series, in: John Roemer & Kotaro Suzumura (ed.), Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability, chapter 4, pages 55-68, Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Susumu Cato, 2009. "Characterizing the Nash social welfare relation for infinite utility streams: a note," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 2372-2379.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:26:p:1-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Christopher Chambers, 2009. "Intergenerational equity: sup, inf, lim sup, and lim inf," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(2), pages 243-252, February.
    3. Susumu Cato, 2009. "Characterizing the Nash social welfare relation for infinite utility streams: a note," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(3), pages 2372-2379.
    4. Sakamoto, Norihito & 坂本, 徳仁, 2011. "Impossibilities of Paretian Social Welfare Functions for Infinite Utility Streams with Distributive Equity," Discussion Papers 2011-09, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    5. Banerjee, Kuntal & Mitra, Tapan, 2004. "On the Continuity of Ethical Social Welfare Orders," Working Papers 04-16, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    6. Geir B. Asheim & Tapan Mitra & Bertil Tungodden, 2016. "Sustainable Recursive Social Welfare Functions," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 165-190, Springer.
    7. Ram Sewak Dubey & Tapan Mitra, 2011. "On equitable social welfare functions satisfying the Weak Pareto Axiom: A complete characterization," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 7(3), pages 231-250, September.
    8. Chiaki Hara & Tomoichi Shinotsuka & Kotaro Suzumura & Yongsheng Xu, 2008. "Continuity and egalitarianism in the evaluation of infinite utility streams," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 179-191, August.
    9. José Carlos R. Alcantud & María D. García-Sanz, 2013. "Evaluations of Infinite Utility Streams: Pareto Efficient and Egalitarian Axiomatics," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 432-447, July.
    10. Toyotaka Sakai, 2010. "Intergenerational equity and an explicit construction of welfare criteria," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 393-414, September.
    11. Toyotaka Sakai, 2016. "Limit representations of intergenerational equity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 481-500, August.
    12. Sakai, Toyotaka, 2010. "A characterization and an impossibility of finite length anonymity for infinite generations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 877-883, September.
    13. Charles Figuières & Mabel Tidball, 2016. "Sustainable Exploitation of a Natural Resource: A Satisfying Use of Chichilnisky’s Criterion," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 207-229, Springer.
    14. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    15. Basu, Kaushik & Mitra, Tapan, 2005. "On the Existence of Paretian Social Welfare Relations for Infinite Utility Streams with Extended Anonymity," Working Papers 05-06, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    16. Luc Lauwers, 2016. "Intergenerational Equity, Efficiency, and Constructibility," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 191-206, Springer.
    17. Asheim, Geir B. & Buchholz, Wolfgang & Tungodden, Bertil, 2001. "Justifying Sustainability," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 252-268, May.
    18. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & Dubey, Ram Sewak, 2014. "Ordering infinite utility streams: Efficiency, continuity, and no impatience," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 33-40.
    19. Mertens, Jean-François & Rubinchik, Anna, 2012. "Intergenerational Equity And The Discount Rate For Policy Analysis," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 61-93, February.
    20. Zuber, Stéphane & Asheim, Geir B., 2012. "Justifying social discounting: The rank-discounted utilitarian approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1572-1601.
    21. Alvarez-Cuadrado, Francisco & Van Long, Ngo, 2009. "A mixed Bentham-Rawls criterion for intergenerational equity: Theory and implications," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 154-168, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-03d60001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.