Climatic Change

, Volume 107, Issue 3–4, pp 417–432 | Cite as

Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality

  • Elizabeth A. StantonEmail author


In a global climate policy debate fraught with differing understandings of right and wrong, the importance of making transparent the ethical assumptions used in climate-economics models cannot be overestimated. Negishi weighting is a key ethical assumption in climate-economics models, but it is virtually unknown to most model users. Negishi weights freeze the current distribution of income between world regions; without this constraint, IAMs that maximize global welfare would recommend an equalization of income across regions as part of their policy advice. With Negishi weights in place, these models instead recommend a course of action that would be optimal only in a world in which global income redistribution cannot and will not take place. This article describes the Negishi procedure and its origin in theoretical and applied welfare economics, and discusses the policy implications of the presentation and use of Negishi-weighted model results, as well as some alternatives to Negishi weighting in climate-economics models.


Income Social Welfare Climate Policy Marginal Utility Abatement Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman F (1997) Utility and welfare I: the history of economic thought. In: Ackerman F, Kiron D, Goodwin NR, Harris JM, Gallagher K (eds) Human well-being and economic goals. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth RB, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Clim Change 95(3–4):297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2007) On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change. Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Papers. Available at:
  5. Arrow KJ (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58(4):328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arrow KJ, Debreu G (1954) Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22(3):265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arrow KJ, Cline WR, Maler K-G, Munasinghe M, Squitieri R, Stiglitz JE (1996) Chapter 4—intertemporal equity, discounting, and economic efficiency. In: Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites EF (eds) Climate change 1995—economic and social dimensions of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the second assessment report of the IPCC. IPCC and Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 125–144Google Scholar
  8. Azar C (1999) Weight factors in cost–benefit analysis of climate change. Environ Resour Econ 13(3):249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baer P, Templet P (2001) GLEAM: a simple model for the analysis of equity in policies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through tradable permits. In: Munasinghe M, Sunkel O, de Miguel C (eds) The sustainability of long-term growth: socioeconomic and ecological perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2007), The right to development in a climate constrained world. Heinrich Böll Foundation, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S, Kemp-Benedict E (2008) The greenhouse development rights framework: the right to development in a climate constrained world. Publication Series on Ecology, Berlin, Heinrich Böll Foundation. Available at:
  12. Bentham J (1970 [1789]) Introduction to the principles of morals. London, AthloneGoogle Scholar
  13. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M (2006) The dynamics of carbon and energy intensity in a model of endogenous technical change. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:191–206Google Scholar
  14. Botzen WJW, Gowdy JM, Van Den Bergh JCJM (2008) Cumulative CO2 emissions: shifting international responsibilities for climate debt. Climate Policy 8:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooter R, Rappoport P (1984) Were the ordinalists wrong about welfare economics? J Econ Lit XXII:507–530Google Scholar
  16. DeCanio SJ (2009) The political economy of global carbon emissions reductions. Ecol Econ 68(3):915–924Google Scholar
  17. Edenhofer O, Lessmann K, Bauer N (2006) Mitigation strategies and costs of climate protection: the effects of ETC in the hybrid model MIND. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:207–222Google Scholar
  18. Edmonds J, Clarke L, Lurz J, Wise M (2008) Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation. Climate Policy 8:355–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerlagh R (2006) ITC in a global growth-climate model with CCS: the value of induced technical change for climate stabilization. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:223–240Google Scholar
  20. Heyward M (2007) Equity and international climate change negotiations: a matter of perspective. Climate Policy 7:518–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hicks JR (1940) The valuation of the social income. Economica X:105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hope C (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr Assess J 6(1):19–56Google Scholar
  23. Hope C (2008) Discount rates, equity weights and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ 30(3):1011–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaldor N (1939) Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Econ J 49:549–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller K, Yang Z, Hall M, Bradford DF (2003) Carbon dioxide sequestration: when and how much? Working Paper 94 Center for Economic Policy Studies, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemfert C, Tol RSJ (2002) Equity, international trade and climate policy. Int Environ Agreements 2(1):23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H (2009) Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy 9:88–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kok M, Metz B, Verhagen J, van Rooijen S (2008) Integrating development and climate policies: national and international benefits. Climate Policy 8:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurosawa A (2004) Carbon concentration target and technological choice. Energy Econ 26:675–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kypreos S (2005) Modeling experience curves in MERGE (model for evaluating regional and global effects). Energy 30(14):2721–2737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Little I (1955) A critique of welfare economics. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Manne AS (1999) Greenhouse gas abatement: toward Pareto-optimality in integrated assessment. In: Arrow KJ, Cottle RW, Eaves BC, Olkin I (eds) Education in a research university. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  33. Manne AS, Richels RG (2004) MERGE: an integrated assessment model for global climate change.
  34. Masui T, Hanaoka T, Hikita S, Kainuma M (2006) Assessment of CO2 reductions and economic impacts considering energy-saving investments. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:175–190Google Scholar
  35. Negishi T (1972) General equilibrium theory and international trade. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: economic modeling of global warming. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  37. Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765Google Scholar
  38. Ott HE, Sterk W, Watanabe R (2008) The Bali roadmap: new horizons for global climate policy. Climate Policy 8:91–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peck SC, Teisberg TJ (1999) CO2 emissions control agreements: incentives for regional participation. Energy J 20:367–390 (special issue on the costs of the kyoto protocol: a multi-model evaluation)Google Scholar
  40. Popp D (2006) Comparison of climate policies in the ENTICE-BR model. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:163–174Google Scholar
  41. Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 138(152):543–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robbins L (1984 [1932]) Essay on the nature and significance of economic science,, Houndmills, UK, Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  43. Rutherford TF (1999) Sequential joint maximization. In: Weyant J (ed) Energy and environmental policy modeling. Springer, New York, pp 139–156Google Scholar
  44. Samuelson P (1956) Social indifference curves. Q J Econ 70(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen A (1987) On ethics and economics. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Sen A (2000) The discipline of cost–benefit analysis. J Legal Stud 29(2):931–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanton EA, Ackerman F, Kartha S (2009) Inside the integrated assessment models: four issues in climate economics. Climate and Development 1.2Google Scholar
  48. Stern N (2006) the stern review: the economics of climate change, London. Available at:
  49. Tol RSJ (1999) Kyoto, efficiency, and cost effectiveness: applications of FUND. Energy J 20:Special Issue: The Coast of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation, 131–156Google Scholar
  50. Tol RSJ (2001) Equitable cost–benefit analysis of climate change policies. Ecol Econ 36(1):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang Z, Nordhaus WD (2006) Magnitude and direction of technological transfers for mitigating GHG emissions. Energy Econ 28:730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment Institute—U.S. CenterSomervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations