Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Utilitarianism versus the repugnant conclusion

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Economic Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An influential body of literature has challenged the suitability of utilitarianism as a criterion for population ethics. Parfit’s (Reason and Pearsons. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984) Repugnant Conclusion posits that utilitarianism favors the existence of large, impoverished societies. Dasgupta’s (Regarding optimum population. J Polit Philos 13:414–442, 2005; Time and the generations. Columbia University Press, New York, 2019) calibrated models provide support for this conclusion. This paper demonstrates that these findings can be overturned by considering alternative, plausible assumptions. A wealthy society with a small population can be consistent with utilitarianism. The paper argues that utilitarianism offers a reliable benchmark for population ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The paper does not use any data.

Notes

  1. A related observation is that any total area can also be accomplished by having an exceedingly large consumption level and only a small number of people. Interestingly, Parfit did not view this scenario as repugnant.

  2. In the terminology of Golosov et al. (2007), the planner’s allocation is P-efficient. The Genesis Problem is a problem in which their A-efficiency concept does not apply since nobody has been born yet.

References

  • Arrow, K., & Enthoven, A. C. (1961). Quasi-concave programming. Econometrica, 29(4), 779–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J., & Becker, G. S. (1989). Fertility choice in a model of economic growth. Econometrica, 57(2), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., Bossert, W., & Donalson, D. (2005). Population issues in social choice theory. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackorby, C., & David, D. (1984). Social criteria for evaluating population change. Journal of Public Economics, 25(1–2), 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba, J. C., & Liu, X. (2022). Malthusian stagnation is efficient. Theoretical Economics, 17(1), 415–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba, J. C., & Ripoll, M. (2019). The elasticity of intergenerational substitution, parental altruism, and fertility choice. Review of Economic Studies, 86, 1935–1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba, J. C., Liu, X., & Ripoll, M. (2023). Optimal population on a finite planet. Mimeo.

  • Dasgupta, P. (2005). Regarding optimum population. Journal of Political Philosophy, 13, 414–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (2019). Time and the generations. Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A. K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. The American Economic Review, 67(3), 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. C. Kegan Paul & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, D. (1967). On optimal development in a multi-sector economy. The Review of Economic Studies, 34(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golosov, M., Jones, L. E., & Tertilt, M. (2007). Efficiency with endogenous population growth. Econometrica, 75, 1039–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jevons, W. S. (1988). The theory of political economy. MacMillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1984). Reason and Pearsons. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The genesis of this paper can be traced to a thought-provoking discussion with Amelia Michael during the 10th GPR Workshop in Oxford in 2022. I gratefully acknowledge her contribution.

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames, USA

    Juan Carlos Córdoba

Authors
  1. Juan Carlos Córdoba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Carlos Córdoba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Córdoba, J.C. Utilitarianism versus the repugnant conclusion. Ind. Econ. Rev. 58 (Suppl 1), 163–180 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-023-00167-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-023-00167-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation