Classical (Generalized) Utilitarianism and the Repugnant Conclusion
Both classical and critical-level generalized utilitarianism (CGU and CLGU) exhibit the repugnant conclusion on an unrestricted choice set when repugnance is defined in terms of the critical level. However, contrary to common belief, the repugnant conclusion is not an inherent feature of utilitarian population principles. Rather, it results from the interaction of the principles with certain choice sets. Choice sets can be assessed in terms of their realism, defined as conformity with universal properties of physics, biology and preferences. It is shown that these properties entail a particular structure of choice set on which CGU and CLGU do not exhibit the repugnant conclusion.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (613) 562-5753
Fax: (613) 562-5999
Web page: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/eco/eng/index.asp
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Stephen Martin & John T. Scott, 1999.
"The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation,"
CIE Discussion Papers
1999-02, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
- Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
- Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 2002. "Uncertainty, spillovers, and cooperative R&D," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 855-876, June.
- Isabel Busom, 2000. "An Empirical Evaluation of The Effects of R&D Subsidies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 111-148.
- Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna, 1998. "R&D Competition in a Mixed Duopoly under Uncertainty and Easy Imitation," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 415-428, September.
- Petrakis, Emmanuel & Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna, 2002. "R&D Subsidies versus R&D Cooperation in a Duopoly with Spillovers and Pollution," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 37-52, March.
- Klette, T.J. & Moen, J. & Griliches, Z., 1999. "Do Subsidies to Commercial R&D Reduce Market Failures? Microeconometric Evaluation Studies," Papers 16/99, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
- Karolina Ekholm & Johan Torstensson, 1997.
"High-Technology Subsidies in General Equilibrium: A Sector-Specific Approach,"
Canadian Journal of Economics,
Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 1184-1203, November.
- Ekholm, Karolina & Torstensson, Johan, 1996. "High-Technology Subsidies in General Equilibrium: A Sector-Specific Approach," Working Paper Series 467, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2004. "Social insurance and the design of innovation incentives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 57-61, October.
- Minoru Kitahara & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2006. "Realized Cost-Based Subsidies For Strategic R&D Investments With "Ex Ante" And "Ex Post" Asymmetries," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 57(3), pages 438-448.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ott:wpaper:0404e. 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: (Diane Ritchot)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.