Contrasting Theories of Intergenerational Justice: Just Savings or Capabilities

Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Geographies of Children and Young People book series (GCYP, volume 5)


A wide range of theoretical and philosophical arguments have been made about what constitutes intergenerational justice and how it should be achieved. Theories of intergenerational justice can help stimulate the imagination about possible futures and ways of being, and they can also (depending on which approach or approaches one finds influential) serve as a locus for shaping political demands or forms of advocacy/activism. This chapter considers two key contributions to the field of intergenerational justice – the work of John Rawls and Amartya Sen – and their implications for present and future generations. Rawls’ particular ideas about equality of liberty and opportunity are singularly influential in modern political thought and debates about social justice. Sen’s work on human freedom, functionings and capabilities has been more prominent in recent years among policy makers and economists. His ideas have had a significant impact on how development is understood and measured around the world, most notably through the United Nations Human Development Index. The high profile of both theories subjects them to considerable critique and interpretation, not least in relation to the prominence of contemporary social policy challenges such as globalisation, sustainable development and debates about fairness between generations. It is this idea of intergenerational justice that is our chief interest. To grapple with this concept, however, it is first important to understand what a theory of justice is and what it means for people alive today. In this chapter we outline the basic components of a theory of justice and consider both Rawls’ and Sen’s ideas about justice among contemporaries. The chapter also looks at the challenges posed by thinking intergenerationally, and how Rawls, Sen and others have applied their theories to make a case for principles of intergenerational justice.


Intergenerational justice Rawls Sen Capability approach 


  1. Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, B. (1977). Rawls on average and total utility: A comment. Philosophical Studies, 31(5), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, B. (1999). Sustainability and intergenerational justice. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brighouse, H., & Robeyns, I. (Eds.). (2010). Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C. (2010). On Amartya Sen and “the idea of justice”. Ethics and International Affairs, 24(3).Google Scholar
  6. Burchardt, T. (2008). Monitoring inequality: Putting the capability approach to work. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, G.A. (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics, 99(4), 906–944.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, N. (1975). Reading rawls: Critical studies on Rawls’ a theory of justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Dobson, A. (1998). Environmental politics and distributive justice. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Justice and the environment: Conceptions of environmental sustainability and theories of distributive justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations. (2011). Climate legacy initiative publishes policy paper.
  11. Fulop, S. (2016). 15 the institutional representation of future generations. In G. Bos & M. Düwel (Eds.), Human rights and sustainability: Moral responsibilities for the future (pp. 195–211). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  12. Gaspart, F., & Gosseries, A. (2007). Are generational savings unjust? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauthier, P. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gosseries, A. (2008). Theories of intergenerational justice: A synopsis, S.A.P.I.EN.S [Online], 1.1, 23 Dec 2008.
  15. Gosseries, A., & Meyer, L. H. (Eds.). (2009). Intergenerational justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gutwald, R., et al. (2014). A capability approach to intergenerational justice? Examining the potential of Amartya Sen's ethics with regard to intergenerational issues. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15(4), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, J. (1997). Intergenerational cooperation and distributive justice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 27(3), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuper, A. (2000). Rawlsian global justice: Beyond the law of peoples to a cosmopolitan law of persons. Political Theory, 28(5), 640–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langhelle, O. (2000). Sustainable development and social justice: Expanding the Rawlsian framework of global justice. Environmental Values, 9(3), 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Sterling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  21. Lessmann, O., & Rauschmayer, F. (2013). Re-conceptualizing sustainable development on the basis of the capability approach: A model and its difficulties. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKinnon, C. (2012). Climate change and future justice: Precaution, compensation and triage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Neuberger, H. & Fraser, N. (1993). Economic Policy: A Rights-Based Approach. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  24. Norton, B. (1999). Ecology and opportunity: Intergenerational equity and sustainable options. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Okin, S. (1989). Justice, gender and the family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Page, E. (2007). Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Paterson, M. (2001). Principles of Justice in the Context of Global Climate Change. In U. Luterbacher and D.F. Sprinz (eds.) International Relations and Global Climate Change. London: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Piachaud, D. (2008). Social justice and public policy: A social policy perspective. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piachaud, D., Macnicol, J. & Lewis. J. (2009). A think piece on intergenerational equity. London: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  33. Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions – Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological Economics, 109, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rauschmayer, F., Omann, I. & Frühmann, J. (2011) Needs, Capabilities and Quality of Life: Refocusing Sustainable Development. In Rauschmayer, F.,Omann, I. & Frühmann, J. (Eds.) Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Needs and Wellbeing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rawls, J. (1993a). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rawls, J. (1993b). The law of peoples. In S. Shute & S. Hurley (Eds.), On human rights. New York: Basic Books/Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  38. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robeyns, I., & Brighouse, H. (2010). Introduction: Social primary goods and capabilities as metrics of justice. In H. Brighouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Scholtes, F. (2010). Whose sustainability? Environmental domination and Sen’s capability approach. Oxford Development Studies, 38(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In A. Sen (Ed.), Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Sen, A. (1993) Capability and Well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen, A. (2014). Global warming is just one of many environmental threats that demand our attention. The new republic. 22 Aug 2014. Available online:
  46. Singer, B. (1988). An extension of Rawls’ theory of justice to environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics, 10(3), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, A. (2009 [1759]). The theory of moral sentiments. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  48. Thompson, J. (2009). Intergenerational justice: Rights and responsibilities in an intergenerational polity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. UNDP. (2017). About human development: Intellectual and historical underpinnings. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports. Available online at:
  50. Vanderbeck, R. M., & Worth, N. (Eds.). (2015). Intergenerational space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Vanderheiden, S. (2008). Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice. In S. Vanderheiden, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–142.Google Scholar
  52. Watene, K. (2013). Nussbaum’s capability approach and future generations. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wissenburg, M. (1999). An extension of the Rawlsian savings principle to liberal theories of justice in general. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wolff, J. (2008). Social justice and public policy: A view from political philosophy. In G. Craig, T. Burchardt, & D. Gordon (Eds.), Social justice and public policy: Seeking fairness in diverse societies. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of GeographyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.University of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations