IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2016s-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to Take Rights Seriously: A New Approach to the Intertemporal Evaluation of Social Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Ngo Van Long
  • Vincent Martinet

Abstract

We propose a new criterion reflecting both the concern for rights and the concern for welfare in the evaluation of economic development paths. The concern for rights is captured by a pre-ordering over combinations of thresholds corresponding to floors or ceilings on various quantitative indicators. The resulting constraints on actions and on levels of state variables are interpreted as minimal rights to be guaranteed to all generations, for intergenerational equity purposes. The levels of these rights are endogenously chosen, accounting for the “cost in terms of welfare” of granting them. Such a criterion could embody the idea of sustainable development. We provide an axiomatization of such a criterion and characterize the tension between rights and welfare in a general economic framework. We apply the criterion to the standard Dasgupta-Heal-Solow model of resource extraction and capital accumulation. We show that if the weight given to rights in the criterion is sufficiently high, the optimal solution is on the threshold possibility frontier. The development path is then “driven” by the rights. Specifically, if a minimal consumption is considered as a right, constant consumption can be optimal even with a positive utility discount rate. In this case, the shadow value of the right plays an important role in the determination of the rate of discount to be applied to social investment projects. Nous proposons un nouveau critère reflétant à la fois le souci des droits et le souci du bien-être dans l’évaluation des sentiers de développement économique. La préoccupation pour les droits est saisie par une structure de préférences envers des combinaisons de seuils de divers indicateurs quantitatifs. Les contraintes sont interprétées comme des droits minimaux à garantir à toutes les générations. Les niveaux de ces droits sont choisis de façon endogène, en tenant compte du coût en termes de bien-être. Un tel critère pourrait incarner l’idée du développement durable. Nous caractérisons la tension entre droits et bien-être dans un cadre économique général. Nous appliquons le critère au modèle de Dasgupta-Heal-Solow. Nous montrons que si le poids accordé aux droits dans le critère est suffisamment élevé, la solution optimale se situe sur la frontière des seuils. Le chemin de développement est alors « piloté » par les droits. Plus précisément, si une consommation minimale est considérée comme un droit, la consommation constante peut être optimale même avec un taux d’actualisation positif. Dans ce cas, la valeur implicite du droit joue un rôle important dans la détermination du taux d’actualisation à appliquer aux projets d’investissement social.

Suggested Citation

  • Ngo Van Long & Vincent Martinet, 2016. "How to Take Rights Seriously: A New Approach to the Intertemporal Evaluation of Social Alternatives," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-60, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2016s-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2016s-60.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geir B. Asheim, 2010. "Intergenerational Equity," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 197-222, September.
    2. Benchekroun, Hassan & Withagen, Cees, 2011. "The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources: A complete characterization," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 612-636, September.
    3. Geir Asheim & Stéphane Zuber, 2013. "A complete and strongly anonymous leximin relation on infinite streams," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 819-834, October.
    4. Alvarez-Cuadrado, Francisco & Van Long, Ngo, 2009. "A mixed Bentham-Rawls criterion for intergenerational equity: Theory and implications," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 154-168, September.
    5. d'Autume, Antoine & Hartwick, John M. & Schubert, Katheline, 2010. "The zero discounting and maximin optimal paths in a simple model of global warming," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 193-207, March.
    6. Asheim, Geir B. & Ekeland, Ivar, 2015. "Resource Conservation across Generations in a Ramsey-Chichilnisky Model," Memorandum 17/2015, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    7. Ujjayant Chakravorty & Michel Moreaux & Mabel Tidball, 2008. "Ordering the Extraction of Polluting Nonrenewable Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1128-1144, June.
    8. Benchekroun, Hassan & Withagen, Cees, 2011. "The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources: A complete characterization," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 612-636, September.
    9. Burmeister, Edwin & Hammond, P J, 1977. "Maximin Paths of Heterogeneous Capital Accumulation and the Instability of Paradoxical Steady States," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 853-870, May.
    10. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "An axiomatic approach to sustainable development," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(2), pages 231-257, April.
    11. Partha Dasgupta & Geoffrey Heal, 1974. "The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 3-28.
    12. repec:bla:econom:v:61:y:1994:i:242:p:167-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    2. Cairns, Robert D. & Del Campo, Stellio & Martinet, Vincent, 2019. "Sustainability of an economy relying on two reproducible assets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 145-160.
    3. Martinet, Vincent & Del Campo, Stellio & Cairns, Robert D., 2022. "Intragenerational inequality aversion and intergenerational equity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue forthcomi.
    4. Smulders, Sjak & Withagen, Cees, 2012. "Green growth -- lessons from growth theory," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6230, The World Bank.
    5. Martinet, Vincent, 2011. "A characterization of sustainability with indicators," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 183-197, March.
    6. Robert D. Cairns, 2011. "Accounting for Sustainability: A Dissenting Opinion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-16, August.
    7. André, Francisco J. & Smulders, Sjak, 2014. "Fueling growth when oil peaks: Directed technological change and the limits to efficiency," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 18-39.
    8. Bosi, Stefano & Desmarchelier, David, 2018. "An economic model of metapopulation dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 387(C), pages 196-204.
    9. Cairns, Robert D. & Martinet, Vincent, 2021. "Growth and long-run sustainability," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 381-402, August.
    10. Luc Lauwers, 2016. "Intergenerational Equity, Efficiency, and Constructibility," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Graciela Chichilnisky & Armon Rezai (ed.), The Economics of the Global Environment, pages 191-206, Springer.
    11. Geir B. Asheim, 2017. "Sustainable growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 825-848, December.
    12. Doyen, L. & Martinet, V., 2012. "Maximin, viability and sustainability," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1414-1430.
    13. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Hammond, Peter J. & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Should We Discount the Welfare of Future Generations? Ramsey and Suppes versus Koopmans and Arrow," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1174, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    14. Geir B. Asheim, 2014. "Equitable intergenerational preferences and sustainability," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 8, pages 125-139, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Hooper, Emma, 2019. "Sustainable growth and financial markets in a natural resource-rich country," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 341-348.
    16. Ha-Huy, Thai, 2022. "A tale of two Rawlsian criteria," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 30-35.
    17. Iho Antti & Kitti Mitri, 2011. "A Tail-Payoff Puzzle in Dynamic Pollution Control," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, May.
    18. Thomas Michielsen, 2013. "Environmental Catastrophes under Time-Inconsistent Preferences," Working Papers 2013.55, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Zuber, Stéphane & Asheim, Geir B., 2012. "Justifying social discounting: The rank-discounted utilitarian approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1572-1601.
    20. Antony, Jürgen & Klarl, Torben, 2022. "Poverty and sustainable development around the world during transition periods," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rights; Welfare; Intergenerational Equity; Sustainable Development; Droits; Bien-être; Equité entre les générations; Développement durable;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cir:cirwor:2016s-60. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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.