Rawlsian Intergenerational Justice as a Markov-perfect Equilibrium in a Resource Technology
The Rawlsian maximin criterion is combined with nonpaternalistic altruistic preferences in a nonrenewable resource technology. The maximin programme is shown to be time-inconsistent for a subset of initial conditions. A solution to this intergenerational conflict is found, under a given assumption, as a generically unique subgame-perfect equilibrium.
KeywordsExpense Nash Rium Myopia Alloca
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Asheim, G.B. (1987), Rawlsian Intergenerational Justice as a Markov-Perfect Equilibrium in a Resource Technology (Discussion Paper 0686, revised, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration)Google Scholar
- Bernheim, B.D. and Ray, D. (1983), Altruistic Growth Economics: I. Existence of Bequest Equilib-ria (Technical Report No. 419, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University)Google Scholar
- Cass, D. and Mitra, T. (1979), Persistence of Economic Growth Despite Exhaustion of Natural Resources (Working Paper 79-27, Center for Analytic Research in Economic and the Social Sciences, University of Pennsylvania)Google Scholar
- Dasgupta, P. and Heal, G. (1974), The optimal depletion of resources, Review of Economic Studies, Symposium 3-28Google Scholar
- Farrell, J. and Maskin, E. (1987), Renegotiation in Repeated Games (Working Paper 8759, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley)Google Scholar
- Greenberg, J. (1990), The Theory of Social Situations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Solow, R.M. (1974), Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources, Review of Economic Studies, Symposium 29-45Google Scholar
- Stiglitz, J.E. (1974), Growth with exhaustible natural resources: Efficient and optimal growth paths, Review of Economic Studies, Symposium 123-137Google Scholar
- Strotz, R.H. (1955-1956), Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization, Review of Economic Studies 23, 165–180Google Scholar