IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare06/139899.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating intergenerational utility distribution preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Scarborough, Helen
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

Resource management decisions influence not only the output of the economy but also the distribution of utility between groups within the community. The theory of Benefit Cost Analysis provides a means of incorporating this distributional change through the application of distributional or welfare weights. This paper reports the results of research designed to estimate distributional weights suitable for inclusion in a Benefit Cost Analysis framework. The findings of a choice modelling experiment estimating community preferences with respect to intergenerational utility distribution are presented to illustrate this innovative application of a stated preference technique.

Suggested Citation

  • Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "Estimating intergenerational utility distribution preferences," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139899, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139899
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.139899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/139899/files/2006_scarborough.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.139899?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    2. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    3. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "Social justice and the distribution of income," Handbook of Income Distribution, in: A.B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (ed.), Handbook of Income Distribution, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 59-85, Elsevier.
    4. A. Markandya, 1998. "Poverty, Income Distribution and Policy Making," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 459-472, April.
    5. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1987. "The theory of cost-benefit analysis," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 909-989, Elsevier.
    6. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, October.
    7. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    8. Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeff & Carr, Rodney, 2004. "Using choice modelling to investigate equity preferences," Working Papers eco_2004_03, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
    9. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    10. Giles Atkinson & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Balancing Competing Principles of Environmental Equity," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(10), pages 1791-1806, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    2. Scarborough, Helen & Bennett, Jeff, 2008. "Estimating intergenerational distribution preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 575-583, July.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    4. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    5. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    7. Curtis, John A. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-15.
    8. Valeria Costantini & Salvatore Monni, 2005. "Measuring Human Development and Environmental Sustainability in European Countries," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 2, May.
    9. MERTENS, Jean-François & RUBINCHIK, Anna, 2006. "Intergenerational equity and the discount rate for cost-benefit analysis," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2006091, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Dorothée Boccanfuso & Antonio Estache & Luc Savard, 2008. "Distributional impact of global warming environmental policies: A survey," Cahiers de recherche 08-14, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    11. Kant, Shashi, 2003. "Extending the boundaries of forest economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 39-56, January.
    12. Morisugi, Hisa & Ohno, Eiji, 1995. "Proposal of a benefit incidence matrix for urban development projects," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 461-481, August.
    13. Bente Halvorsen, 2004. "Effects of norms, warm-glow and time use on household recycling," Discussion Papers 389, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    14. Massimo Filippini & Adán L. Martínez-Cruz, 2016. "Impact of environmental and social attitudes, and family concerns on willingness to pay for improved air quality: a contingent valuation application in Mexico City," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "A Bio-Economic Model Of Wetland Protection On Private Lands," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20122, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Samuel Fankhauser & Richard Tol & DAVID Pearce, 1997. "The Aggregation of Climate Change Damages: a Welfare Theoretic Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 249-266, October.
    17. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Project analysis as input to public debate: Environmental valuation versus physical unit indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 393-408, September.
    18. Harald Lang & Armin-D. Riess, 2019. "Shadow wages in cost-benefit rules for project and policy analyses: estimates for OECD countries," DEM Discussion Paper Series 19-05, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    19. Dorothee Boccanfuso & Antonio Estache & Luc Savard, 2011. "The Intra-country Distributional Impact of Policies to Fight Climate Change: A Survey," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 97-117.
    20. Farrow, Scott, 1998. "Environmental equity and sustainability: rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 183-188, November.

    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:ags:aare06:139899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.