Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth RB, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Clim Change 95(3–4):297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://www.bepress.com/feem/paper65

  • Arrow KJ (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58(4):328–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ, Debreu G (1954) Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica 22(3):265–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 125–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Azar C (1999) Weight factors in cost–benefit analysis of climate change. Environ Resour Econ 13(3):249–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S (2007), The right to development in a climate constrained world. Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf

  • Bentham J (1970 [1789]) Introduction to the principles of morals. London, Athlone

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:191–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzen WJW, Gowdy JM, Van Den Bergh JCJM (2008) Cumulative CO2 emissions: shifting international responsibilities for climate debt. Climate Policy 8:569–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooter R, Rappoport P (1984) Were the ordinalists wrong about welfare economics? J Econ Lit XXII:507–530

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCanio SJ (2009) The political economy of global carbon emissions reductions. Ecol Econ 68(3):915–924

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:207–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds J, Clarke L, Lurz J, Wise M (2008) Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation. Climate Policy 8:355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:223–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyward M (2007) Equity and international climate change negotiations: a matter of perspective. Climate Policy 7:518–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks JR (1940) The valuation of the social income. Economica X:105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):19–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope C (2008) Discount rates, equity weights and the social cost of carbon. Energy Econ 30(3):1011–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor N (1939) Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Econ J 49:549–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 University

  • Kemfert C, Tol RSJ (2002) Equity, international trade and climate policy. Int Environ Agreements 2(1):23–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H (2009) Conceptualizations of justice in climate policy. Climate Policy 9:88–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok M, Metz B, Verhagen J, van Rooijen S (2008) Integrating development and climate policies: national and international benefits. Climate Policy 8:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurosawa A (2004) Carbon concentration target and technological choice. Energy Econ 26:675–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kypreos S (2005) Modeling experience curves in MERGE (model for evaluating regional and global effects). Energy 30(14):2721–2737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little I (1955) A critique of welfare economics. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne AS, Richels RG (2004) MERGE: an integrated assessment model for global climate change. http://www.standford.edu/group/MERGE/

  • 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 1:175–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Negishi T (1972) General equilibrium theory and international trade. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD (2008) A question of balance: economic modeling of global warming. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott HE, Sterk W, Watanabe R (2008) The Bali roadmap: new horizons for global climate policy. Climate Policy 8:91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Popp D (2006) Comparison of climate policies in the ENTICE-BR model. Energy J, Endogenous Technological Change, Special Issue 1:163–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J 138(152):543–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins L (1984 [1932]) Essay on the nature and significance of economic science,, Houndmills, UK, Palgrave Macmillan

  • Rutherford TF (1999) Sequential joint maximization. In: Weyant J (ed) Energy and environmental policy modeling. Springer, New York, pp 139–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1956) Social indifference curves. Q J Econ 70(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1987) On ethics and economics. Blackwell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (2000) The discipline of cost–benefit analysis. J Legal Stud 29(2):931–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton EA, Ackerman F, Kartha S (2009) Inside the integrated assessment models: four issues in climate economics. Climate and Development 1.2

  • Stern N (2006) the stern review: the economics of climate change, London. Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm

  • 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, 131–156

  • Tol RSJ (2001) Equitable cost–benefit analysis of climate change policies. Ecol Econ 36(1):71–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Z, Nordhaus WD (2006) Magnitude and direction of technological transfers for mitigating GHG emissions. Energy Econ 28:730–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Environment Institute—U.S. Center, 11 Curtis Avenue, Somerville, MA, 02144, USA

    Elizabeth A. Stanton

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Stanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Stanton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stanton, E.A. Negishi welfare weights in integrated assessment models: the mathematics of global inequality. Climatic Change 107, 417–432 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9967-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9967-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation