Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:30:14.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY AND THE DISCOUNT RATE FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

Jean-François Mertens  and
Anna Rubinchik
Jean-François Mertens
Affiliation:
CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain
Anna Rubinchik*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
*
Address correspondence to: Anna Rubinchik, Department of Economics, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 31905, Israel; e-mail: annarubinchik@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For two independent principles of intergenerational equity, the implied discount rate equals the growth rate of real per capita income, say, 2%, thus falling right into the range suggested by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. To prove this, we develop a simple tool to evaluate small policy changes affecting several generations, by reducing the dynamic problem to a static one. A necessary condition is time invariance, which is satisfied by any common solution concept in an overlapping-generations model with exogenous growth. This tool is applied to derive the discount rate for cost–benefit analysis under two different utilitarian welfare functions: classical and relative. It is only with relative utilitarianism, and assuming time-invariance of the set of alternatives (policies), that the discount rate is well defined for a heterogeneous society at a balanced growth equilibrium, is corroborated by an independent principle equating values of human lives, and equals the growth rate of real per-capita income.

Keywords

Overlapping GenerationsPolicy ReformIntergenerational EquityCost–Benefit AnalysisDiscount RateUtilitarianism
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 61 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K.J. (2007) Global climate change: A challenge to policy. The Economists' Voice 4 (3), article 2. Available at http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K.J. and Kurz, M. (1970) Public Investment, the Rate of Return, and Optimal Fiscal Policy. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Asheim, G.B. (1991) Unjust intergenerational allocations. Journal of Economic Theory 54, 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asheim, G.B., Mitra, T., and Tungodden, B. (2006) Sustainable Recursive Social Welfare Functions. Mimeo, Oslo University, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Basu, K. and Mitra, T. (2003) Aggregating infinite utility streams with intergenerational equity: The impossibility of being Paretian. Econometrica 71 (5), 1557–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chichilnisky, G. (1996) An axiomatic approach to sustainable development. Social Choice and Welfare 13, 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, Juan, Núñez, Carmelo, and Rincón-Zapatero, Juan (2009). On the impossibility of representing infinite utility streams. Economic Theory 40 (1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (2008) Discounting climate change. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 37 (2–3), Special Issue on Discounting Dilemmas, 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Aspremont, C. (2007) Formal welfarism and intergenerational equity. In Roemer, J. and Suzumura, K. (eds.), Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability, Conference Proceedings of the IEA Roundtable Meeting on Intergenerational Equity, pp. 113–130. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, G. (1976, May) Regular differentiable economies. American Economic Review 66 (2), Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 280–287.Google Scholar
Demichelis, S. and Polemarchakis, H. M. (2007) The determinacy of equilibrium in economies of overlapping generations. Economic Theory 32 (3), 3461–3475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, A. and Mertens, J.-F. (1999) Relative utilitarianism. Econometrica 67 (3), 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drèze, J. and Stern, N. (1987) The theory of cost–benefit analysis. In Auerbach, A. J. and Feldstein, M. (eds.), Handbook of Public Economics, Volume II, Chapter 14. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Drèze, J.H. (1981) Inferring risk tolerance from deductibles in insurance contracts. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R.E. (1965) Functional Analysis. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Einav, L. and Cohen, A. (2007) Estimating risk preferences from deductible choice. American Economic Review 97 (3), 745–788.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Michel, P. (2003) Intertemporal equity and the extension of the Ramsey criterion. Journal of Mathematical Economics 39, 777–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréchet, M. (1913) Pri la funkcia ekvacio f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y). L'Enseignement Mathématique 15, 390–393.Google Scholar
Gale, D. (1973) Pure exchange equilibrium of dynamic economic models. Journal of Economic Theory 6, 12–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geanakoplos, J.D. and Brown, D.J. (1985) Comparative Statics and Local Indeterminacy in OLG Economies: An Application of the Multiplicative Ergodic Theorem. Cowles Discussion Paper 773.Google Scholar
Gel'fand, I.M. and Shilov, G.E. (1959) Obobshennuye funkzii i deistviya nad nimi, 2nd ed. Moscow: Fizmatgiz.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. A. (1994) The Integrals of Lebesgue, Denjoy, Perron, and Henstock. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, L.D. and Williamson, S.H. (2007) Source Note for US GDP, 1789–Present. Economic History Services. Available at http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/.Google Scholar
Kehoe, T.J. and Levine, D.K. (1984) Regularity in overlapping generations exchange economies. Journal of Mathematical Economics 13 (1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J. and Namioka, I. (1963) Linear Topological Spaces. The University Series in Higher Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R.G., Plosser, C.I., and Rebelo, S.T. (2002) Production, growth and business cycles: Technical appendix. Computational Economics 20 (1–2), 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, T.C. (1960) Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica 28, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotlikoff, L.J. (2002) Generational policy. In Auerbach, A. J. and Feldstein, M. (eds.), Handbook of Public Economics, Vol. 4, Chap. 27, pp. 1873–1932. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mertens, J.-F. and Rubinchik, A. (2006) Intergenerational Equity and the Discount Rate for Cost–Benefit Analysis. Discussion Paper 2006/91, CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, J.-F. and Rubinchik, A. (2009) Regularity and Stability of Equilibria in an Overlapping Generations Model with Exogenous Growth. Discussion Paper 2009/5, CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Prelimary Version 0. Most recent version available at http://econ.haifa.ac.il/~arubinchik/papers/Reg_Stab_OLG.pdf.Google Scholar
Mertens, J.-F. and Rubinchik, A. (2010) Discounting, Stationarity, and Welfare Evaluation of Policies. Mimeo, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Mishan, E. J. (1971) Evaluation of life and limb: A theoretical approach. Journal of Political Economy 79 (4), 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F.P. (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal 38 (152), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. (1958) An exact consumption-loan model of interest with or without the social contrivance of money. Journal of Political Economy 66 (6), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, L. (1957-1959) Théorie des distributions, Vols. I and II. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1874) The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006) Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, N. (2007) Value Judgements, Welfare Weights and Discounting: Issues and Evidence. Available at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/C/8/Paper_B.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2003) OMB Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Wildi, W., Appel, D., Buser, M., Dermange, F., Eckhardt, A., Hufschmied, P., and Keusen, H.-R. (2000) Disposal Concepts for Radioactive Waste. Written on Behalf of the Federal Department for the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication of Switzerland.Google Scholar