Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Some remarks on the ranking of infinite utility streams

By Bhaskar Dutta

Abstract

A long tradition in welfare economics and moral philosophy, dating back at least to Sidgwick(1907) is the idea that all generations must be treated alike. Perhaps, the most forceful assertion of this idea comes from Ramsey (1928) who declared that any argument for preferring one generation over another must come “merely from the weakness of the imagination”. The “equal treatment of all generations” or the intergenerational equity principle has been formalised in the subsequent literature as the axiom of Anonymity, which requires that two infinite utility streams be judged indifferent to one another if one can be obtained from the other through a permutation of utilities of a finite number of generations. Since it also seems “natural” to require that any social evaluation of infinite utility streams respond positively to an increase in the utility of any generation, the Pareto Axiom is also desirable. Unfortunately, Diamond(1965) showed that there is no social welfare function satisfying these axioms along with a continuity axiom. In a more recent paper, Basu and Mitra( 2003) prove a more general result by showing that the continuity axiom is superfluous

Topics: HB
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1397

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. and L.Gevers(2002) “Interpersonal comparability of welfare and social choice theory”, doi
  2. (2007). Can Utilitarianism be Operationalized?”,
  3. (1971). Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Oliver and Boyd, doi
  4. (1980). Equity among generations”, doi
  5. (2003). Intertemporal Equity and extension of the Ramsey Principle”, doi
  6. Mitra(2003) “Aggregating infinite utility streams with intergenerational equity: the impossibility of being Paretian,” doi
  7. Mitra(2006) “On the impatience implications of Paretian social welfare functions”, doi
  8. (1977). On weights and measures: informational constraints in social welfare analysis”, doi
  9. (1966). Some formal models of grading principles”, doi
  10. (1960). Stationary ordinal utility and impatience”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.