IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v73y1997i4p580-596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Problem of Achieving Efficiency and Equity, Intergenerationally

Author

Listed:
  • Talbot Page

Abstract

The paper compares two approaches to the problem of achieving the social goals of sustainability and intergenerational efficiency. The first is a separated approach, where the results of standard benefit-cost analysis are (later) combined with intergenerational equity considerations. The second, in the tradition of institutional design, is an integrated approach, where efficiency and equity considerations are combined from the start. It appears that several well-known problems with discounting can be avoided or mitigated by the second approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Talbot Page, 1997. "On the Problem of Achieving Efficiency and Equity, Intergenerationally," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(4), pages 580-596.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:73:y:1997:i:4:p:580-596
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147247
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charlotte Demonsant, 2020. "Overcoming the tragedy of climate change: An examination of a managerial rule of solidarity," Post-Print hal-03063693, HAL.
    2. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    3. Anne van Aaken & Janis Antonovics & Susan Rose-Ackerman, 2016. "The Limits of Cost/Benefit Analysis When Disasters Loom," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7, pages 56-66, May.
    4. Sinden, Jack A., 2003. "Who Pays to Protect Native Vegetation? Costs to Farmers in Moree Plains Shire, New South Wales," Working Papers 12951, University of New England, School of Economics.
    5. Iglesias, Eva, 2002. "La gestion de las aguas subterraneas en el acuifero Mancha Occidental," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(01), pages 1-20.
    6. Kevin N. Griffith & Lawrence M. Scheier, 2013. "Did We Get Our Money’s Worth? Bridging Economic and Behavioral Measures of Program Success in Adolescent Drug Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, November.
    7. Amy Sinden & Douglas A. Kysar & David M. Driesen, 2009. "Cost–benefit analysis: New foundations on shifting sand," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 48-71, March.
    8. Pasqual, Joan & Souto, Guadalupe, 2003. "Sustainability in natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 47-59, August.
    9. Anderson, Mark W. & Teisl, Mario & Noblet, Caroline, 2012. "Giving voice to the future in sustainability: Retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-6.
    10. Scott, Antony, 1999. "Trust law, sustainability, and responsible action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 139-154, October.
    11. Hepburn, Cameron J. & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2007. "Recent advances in discounting: Implications for forest economics," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 169-189, August.
    12. Cameron Hepburn & Greer Gosnell, 2014. "Evaluating impacts in the distant future: cost–benefit analysis, discounting and the alternatives," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 9, pages 140-159, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:73:y:1997:i:4:p:580-596. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.