Some remarks on the ranking of infinite utility streams
Dutta, Bhaskar (2007) Some remarks on the ranking of infinite utility streams. Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick, Department of Economics. (Warwick economic research papers.
WRAP_Dutta_twerp_819.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear...
A long tradition in welfare economics and moral philosophy, dating back at least to Sidgwick(1907) is the idea that all generations must be treated alike. Perhaps, the most forceful assertion of this idea comes from Ramsey (1928) who declared that any argument for preferring one generation over another must come “merely from the weakness of the imagination”. The “equal treatment of all generations” or the intergenerational equity principle has been formalised in the subsequent literature as the axiom of Anonymity, which requires that two infinite utility streams be judged indifferent to one another if one can be obtained from the other through a permutation of utilities of a finite number of generations. Since it also seems “natural” to require that any social evaluation of infinite utility streams respond positively to an increase in the utility of any generation, the Pareto Axiom is also desirable. Unfortunately, Diamond(1965) showed that there is no social welfare function satisfying these axioms along with a continuity axiom. In a more recent paper, Basu and Mitra( 2003) prove a more general result by showing that the continuity axiom is superfluous.
|Item Type:||Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)|
|Subjects:||H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Welfare economics, Marginal utility, Ethics -- Economic aspects|
|Series Name:||Warwick economic research papers|
|Publisher:||University of Warwick, Department of Economics|
|Place of Publication:||Coventry|
|Date:||9 October 2007|
|Number of Pages:||15|
|Status:||Not Peer Reviewed|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|References:||G.B. Asheim, W. Buchholz, B. Tungodden (2001) “Justifying sustainability,” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 41, 252-268. G.B. Asheim, W. Buchholz, B. Tungodden(2004) “Resolving distributional conflicts between generations,” Rev. Econ. Stud.24, 221-230. K. Banerjee, T. Mitra(2006) “On the impatience implications of Paretian social welfare functions”, 43, 236-248. K. Basu, T. Mitra(2003) “Aggregating infinite utility streams with intergenerational equity: the impossibility of being Paretian,” Econometrica 71, 1557-1563. d’ Aspremont, C. and L.Gevers(2002) “Interpersonal comparability of welfare and social choice theory”, in K.J.Arow, A.K. Sen and K.Suzumura eds., Handbook of Social Choice Theory, Elsevier, Amsterdam. M. Fleurbaey, P. Michel (2003) “ Intertemporal Equity and extension of the Ramsey Principle”, J. Math. Econ. 39, 777-802. Fishburn, P., and A. Rubinstein (1982) “Time Preference”, International Economic Review, 23, 677–694. T.C. Koopmans (1960) “ Stationary ordinal utility and impatience”, Econometrica 28, 287-309. A.K. Sen (1971) Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. A.K. Sen (1977) “On weights and measures: informational constraints in social welfare analysis”, Econometrica45, 1539-1572. P. Suppes (1966) “Some formal models of grading principles”, Synthese 6, 284-306. L.-G. Svensson (1980) “Equity among generations”, Econometrica 48, 1251-1256. W.R. Zame (2007) “Can Utilitarianism be Operationalized?”, Theoretical Economics, 2, 187-202.|
Actions (login required)