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.
KeywordsDiscounting Posterity Altruism Comet problem Trolley problem Climate change Global warming Uncertainty Learning Reaction function
JEL ClassificationD90 D64 Q54 D81
- 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
- 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.
- Cowen, T. (2008). Social discount rate. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gollier, C. (2008). Discounting with fat-tailed economic growth. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37 (2/3).Google Scholar
- 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
- Portney, P.R., and Weyant, J.P. (Eds.) (1999). Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Weitzman, M. L. (2008a). Some dynamic economic consequences of the sensitivity inference dilemma. Mimeo: Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Weitzman, M. L. (2008b). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Mimeo: Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science (314), 20 October 2006, 452–454.Google Scholar
- Zeckhauser, R., & Fels, S. (1968). Discounting for proximity with perfect and total altruism. Discussion Paper Number 50, Harvard Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar