We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 7 recapitulates how Chapters 3 to 6 demonstrate that charity controllers are subject to a range of duties and mechanisms that ensure some regard be given to both present and future potential benefit recipients but that those duties and mechanisms largely lack a normative benchmark, such as intergenerational justice, to determine the timing of benefit distribution. Chapter 7 thus examines whether intergenerational justice could act as a normative basis for charity controllers’ choices about how to allocate benefits between current and future generations. It also considers the role that efficiency might play in such decision-making. The chapter then investigates the practicalities of attempting to incorporate principles of intergenerational justice into rules that constrain charity accumulation. Both general issues of practicality and specific reform options are considered. The aim is to better incorporate a normative basis for benefit distribution while at the same time protecting the potential benefits from accumulation and retaining consistency with the goals of charity law. Examples are drawn from the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.