Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 37, Issue 2–3, pp 115–140

Policymaking for posterity

Article

Abstract

Policymaking for posterity involves current decisions with distant consequences. Contrary to conventional prescriptions, we conclude that the greater wealth of future generations may strengthen the case for preserving environmental amenities; lower discount rates should be applied to the far future, and special effort should be made to avoid actions that impose costs on future generations. Posterity brings great uncertainties. Even massive losses, such as human extinction, however, do not merit infinite negative utility. Given learning, greater uncertainties about damages could increase or decrease the optimal level of current mitigation activities. Policies for posterity should anticipate effects on: alternative investments, both public and private; the actions of other nations; and the behaviors of future generations. Such effects may surprise. This analysis blends traditional public finance and behavioral economics with a number of hypothetical choice problems.

Keywords

Discounting Posterity Altruism Comet problem Trolley problem Climate change Global warming Uncertainty Learning Reaction function 

JEL Classification

D90 D64 Q54 D81 

References

  1. Arrow, K. (1999). Discounting, morality, and gaming. In P. R. Portney, & J. P. Weyant (Eds.), Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/cvblue.pdf.
  3. Cowen, T. (2008). Social discount rate. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  4. Cropper, M., Aydede, S. K., & Portney, P. R. (1994). Preferences for life saving programs: How the public discounts time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(3), 243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feldstein, M. (1964). The social time preference discount rate in cost benefit analysis. Economic Journal, 74(294), 360–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15. Reprinted in Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross, eds. Killing and letting die, 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1994), pp. 266–279.Google Scholar
  7. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gollier, C. (2008). Discounting with fat-tailed economic growth. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37 (2/3).Google Scholar
  9. Gollier, C., & Treich, N. (2003). Decision-making under scientific uncertainty: The economics of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27, 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gollier, C., Jullien, B., & Treich, N. (2000). Scientific progress and irreversibility: An economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(6), 551–578.Google Scholar
  13. Nordhaus, W. D. (2007). A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Phelps, E. S., & Pollak, R. (1968). On second-best national saving and game—Equilibrium growth. Review of Economic Studies, 35(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Portney, P.R., and Weyant, J.P. (Eds.) (1999). Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  16. Schelling, T. (1957). Bargaining, communication, and limited war. Conflict Resolution, 1(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2001). “Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving.” http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/richard.thaler/research/SMarT14.pdf.
  19. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weitzman, M. L. (1999). Just keep discounting, but…. In P. R. Portney, & J. P. Weyant (Eds.), Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  21. Weitzman, M. L. (2007). A review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, 45(3), 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weitzman, M. L. (2008a). Some dynamic economic consequences of the sensitivity inference dilemma. Mimeo: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  23. Weitzman, M. L. (2008b). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Mimeo: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science (314), 20 October 2006, 452–454.Google Scholar
  25. Zeckhauser, R., & Fels, S. (1968). Discounting for proximity with perfect and total altruism. Discussion Paper Number 50, Harvard Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations