Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAsheim, Geir Bjarne
dc.contributor.authorMitra, Tapan
dc.contributor.authorTungodden, Bertil
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-14T10:18:56Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-07T10:43:15Z
dc.date.available2015-09-14T10:18:56Z
dc.date.available2016-09-07T10:43:15Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationEconomic Theory 2012, 49(2):267-292nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0938-2259
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2404977
dc.descriptionThis article is published with open access at Springerlink.comnb_NO
dc.description.abstractWhat ethical criterion for intergenerational justice should be adopted, e.g., when faced with the task of managing the global environment? Koopmans’ axiomatization of discounted utilitarianism is based on seemingly compelling conditions, yet this criterion leads to hard-to-justify outcomes. The present analysis considers a class of sustainable recursive social welfare functions within Koopmans’ general framework. This class is axiomatized by means of a weak equity condition (“Hammond Equity for the Future”) and general existence is established. Any member of the class satisfies the key axioms of Chichilnisky’s “sustainable preferences”. The analysis singles out one of Koopmans’ original separability conditions (his Postulate 3'a), here called “Independent Present”, as particularly questionable from an ethical perspective.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherSpringernb_NO
dc.titleSustainable recursive social welfare functionsnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.date.updated2015-09-14T10:18:56Z
dc.rights.holder© The Author(s) 2010.nb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber267-292nb_NO
dc.source.volume49nb_NO
dc.source.journalEconomic Theorynb_NO
dc.source.issue2nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00199-010-0573-7
dc.identifier.cristin526421


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel