IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2016s-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Mixed Bentham-Rawls Intertemporal Choice Criterion and Rawls’ Just Savings Principle

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Figuieres
  • Ngo Van Long
  • Mabel Tidball

Abstract

This paper provides general theorems about the control that maximizes the mixed Bentham-Rawls (MBR) criterion for intergenerational justice, which was introduced in Alvarez-Cuadrado and Long (2009). We establish sufficient concavity conditions for a candidate trajectory to be optimal and unique. We show that the state variable is monotonic under rather weak conditions. We also prove that inequality among generations, captured by the gap between the poorest and the richest generations, is lower when optimization is performed under the MBR criterion rather than under the discounted utilitarian criterion. A quadratic example is also used to perform comparative static exercices: it turns out, in particular, that the larger the weight attributed to the maximin part of the MBR criterion, the better-off the less fortunate generations. All those properties are discussed and compared with those of the discounted utilitarian (DU, Koopmans 1960) and the rank-discounted utilitarian (RDU, Zuber and Asheim, 2012) criterions. We contend they are in line with some aspects of the rawlsian just savings principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Figuieres & Ngo Van Long & Mabel Tidball, 2016. "The Mixed Bentham-Rawls Intertemporal Choice Criterion and Rawls’ Just Savings Principle," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-49, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2016s-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2016s-49.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ngo Van Long, 1979. "Two Theorems on Generalized Diminishing Returns and their Applications to Economic Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 55(1), pages 58-63, March.
    3. John Roemer & Kotaro Suzumura (ed.), 2007. "Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability," International Economic Association Series, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-23676-9, December.
    4. Geir B. Asheim, 1988. "Rawlsian Intergenerational Justice as a Markov-Perfect Equilibrium in a Resource Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 55(3), pages 469-483.
    5. 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.
    6. Hartl, Richard F., 1987. "A simple proof of the monotonicity of the state trajectories in autonomous control problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 211-215, February.
    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. 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.

    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. Figuières, Charles & Long, Ngo Van & Tidball, Mabel, 2017. "The MBR intertemporal choice criterion and Rawls’ just savings principle," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-22.
    2. 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.
    3. Darrel Moellendorf & Axel Schaffer, 2017. "An intergenerationally fair path towards 2 °C," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 213-226, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Hoberg, Nikolai & Strunz, Sebastian, 2018. "When Individual Preferences Defy Sustainability — Can Merit Good Arguments Close the Gap?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 286-293.
    6. Bazhanov, Andrei V., 2013. "Constant-utility paths in a resource-based economy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 342-355.
    7. Cairns, Robert D. & Del Campo, Stellio & Martinet, Vincent, 2019. "Sustainability of an economy relying on two reproducible assets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 145-160.
    8. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    9. 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.
    10. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jeroen C. J. M. Van Den Bergh & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2018. "Climate Policy Without Intertemporal Dictatorship: Chichilnisky Criterion Versus Classical Utilitarianism In Dice," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Knapp, Keith C., 2006. "Recursive Sustainability: Intertemporal Efficiency and Equity," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21472, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. 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.
    13. Geir B. Asheim, 2017. "Sustainable growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 825-848, December.
    14. Martinet, Vincent & Del Campo, Stellio & Cairns, Robert D., 2022. "Intragenerational inequality aversion and intergenerational equity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue forthcomi.
    15. Geir B. Asheim, 2014. "Equitable intergenerational preferences and sustainability," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 8, pages 125-139, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Ha-Huy, Thai, 2022. "A tale of two Rawlsian criteria," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 30-35.
    17. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Climate policy with Bentham–Rawls preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 424-428.
    18. 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.
    19. Thomas Michielsen, 2013. "Environmental Catastrophes under Time-Inconsistent Preferences," Working Papers 2013.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Bontems, Philippe & Martinet, Vincent & Rotillon, Gilles & Withagen, Cees, 2015. "Interactions between agricultural economics and environmental and resource economics in European research: Insights from the theory of non-renewable resources," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 167-185, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intergenerational equity; just savings principle;

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cir:cirwor:2016s-49. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.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.