The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Arden Rowell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on discounting regulatory benefits risk money and Intergenerational Equity
University of Chicago Law Review, 2007Co-Authors: Cass R Sunstein, Arden RowellAbstract:There is an elaborate debate over the practice of “discounting” regulatory benefits, such as environmental improvements and decreased risks to health and life, when those benefits will not be enjoyed until some future date. Economists tend to think that, as a general rule, such benefits should be discounted in the same way as money; many philosophers and lawyers doubt that conclusion on empirical and normative grounds. Both sides frequently neglect a simple point: if regulators are interested in how people currently value risks that will not come to fruition for a significant time, they can use people’s current willingness to pay to reduce those risks. And if the question involves people’s willingness to pay in the future, what is being discounted is merely money, not regulatory benefits as such. No one seeks to discount health and life as such—only the money that might be used to reduce threats to these goods. If willingness to pay to reduce risk is the appropriate metric for allocating regulatory resources, discounting merely adjusts that metric to make expenditures comparable through time. To be sure, cost-benefit analysis with discounting can produce serious problems of Intergenerational Equity; but those problems, involving the obligations of the present to the future, require an independent analysis. Failing to discount will often hurt, rather than help, future generations, and solutions to the problem of Intergenerational Equity should not be conflated with the question of whether to discount.
-
on discounting regulatory benefits risk money and Intergenerational Equity
Social Science Research Network, 2005Co-Authors: Cass R Sunstein, Arden RowellAbstract:There is an elaborate debate over the practice of discounting regulatory benefits, such as environmental improvements and decreased risks to health and life, when those benefits will not be enjoyed until some future date. Economists tend to think that as a general rule, such benefits should be discounted in the same way as money; many philosophers and lawyers doubt that conclusion on empirical and normative grounds. The doubts have been countered with the suggestion that a failure to discount would lead to unreasonable or paradoxical results. Both sides frequently neglect a simple point: Once government has converted regulatory benefits into monetary equivalents, what is being discounted is merely money, not regulatory benefits as such. No one seeks to discount health and life - only the money that might be used to reduce threats to these goods. It is nonetheless true that cost-benefit analysis with discounting can create serious problems of Intergenerational Equity; those problems, involving the obligations of the present to the future, require an independent analysis. A morally adequate response to the underlying problems, not involving the question of whether to discount, is to ensure that future generations receive compensation for any risks that are imposed on them by their predecessors.
Cass R Sunstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on discounting regulatory benefits risk money and Intergenerational Equity
University of Chicago Law Review, 2007Co-Authors: Cass R Sunstein, Arden RowellAbstract:There is an elaborate debate over the practice of “discounting” regulatory benefits, such as environmental improvements and decreased risks to health and life, when those benefits will not be enjoyed until some future date. Economists tend to think that, as a general rule, such benefits should be discounted in the same way as money; many philosophers and lawyers doubt that conclusion on empirical and normative grounds. Both sides frequently neglect a simple point: if regulators are interested in how people currently value risks that will not come to fruition for a significant time, they can use people’s current willingness to pay to reduce those risks. And if the question involves people’s willingness to pay in the future, what is being discounted is merely money, not regulatory benefits as such. No one seeks to discount health and life as such—only the money that might be used to reduce threats to these goods. If willingness to pay to reduce risk is the appropriate metric for allocating regulatory resources, discounting merely adjusts that metric to make expenditures comparable through time. To be sure, cost-benefit analysis with discounting can produce serious problems of Intergenerational Equity; but those problems, involving the obligations of the present to the future, require an independent analysis. Failing to discount will often hurt, rather than help, future generations, and solutions to the problem of Intergenerational Equity should not be conflated with the question of whether to discount.
-
on discounting regulatory benefits risk money and Intergenerational Equity
Social Science Research Network, 2005Co-Authors: Cass R Sunstein, Arden RowellAbstract:There is an elaborate debate over the practice of discounting regulatory benefits, such as environmental improvements and decreased risks to health and life, when those benefits will not be enjoyed until some future date. Economists tend to think that as a general rule, such benefits should be discounted in the same way as money; many philosophers and lawyers doubt that conclusion on empirical and normative grounds. The doubts have been countered with the suggestion that a failure to discount would lead to unreasonable or paradoxical results. Both sides frequently neglect a simple point: Once government has converted regulatory benefits into monetary equivalents, what is being discounted is merely money, not regulatory benefits as such. No one seeks to discount health and life - only the money that might be used to reduce threats to these goods. It is nonetheless true that cost-benefit analysis with discounting can create serious problems of Intergenerational Equity; those problems, involving the obligations of the present to the future, require an independent analysis. A morally adequate response to the underlying problems, not involving the question of whether to discount, is to ensure that future generations receive compensation for any risks that are imposed on them by their predecessors.
Julia M Puaschunder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the call for global responsible Intergenerational leadership in the corporate world the quest of an integration of Intergenerational Equity in contemporary corporate social responsibility csr models
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Julia M PuaschunderAbstract:Global systemic risks of climate change, overindebtedness in the aftermath of the 2008/09 World Financial Crisis and the need for pension reform in the wake of an aging Western world population, currently raise attention for Intergenerational fairness. Pressing social dilemmas beyond the control of singular nation states call for corporate social activities to back governmental regulation in crisis mitigation. The following paper promotes the idea of Intergenerational Equity in the corporate world. In the given literature on global responsible leadership in the corporate sector and contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) models, Intergenerational Equity appears to have widely been neglected. While the notion of sustainability has been integrated in CSR models, Intergenerational Equity has hardly been touched on as for contemporarily being a more legal case for codifying the triple bottom line. Advocating for integrating Intergenerational Equity concerns in CSR models in academia and practice holds advantages of untapped potentials of economically influential corporate entities, corporate adaptability and independence from voting cycles. Integrate a temporal dimension in contemporary CSR helps imbuing a longer-term perspective into the corporate world alongside advancements regarding tax ethics and global governance crises prevention. Future research avenues comprise of investigating situational factors influencing Intergenerational leadership in the international arena in order to advance the idea of corporations aiding to tackle the most pressing contemporary challenges of mankind.
-
the future is now how joint decision making curbs hyperbolic discounting but blurs social responsibility in the Intergenerational Equity public policy domain
2012Co-Authors: Julia M Puaschunder, Gary SchwarzAbstract:When individuals judge alternative choices, presenting alternatives concurrently improves decision making outcomes. The joint decision making advantage has been proven in the Western world, yet generalizations for other cultures are missing. This paper explores the applicability of joint decision making for global public policy decisions in the Intergenerational Equity domain. Presenting the viewpoints of two generations with outcomes now or later concurrently worked towards Intergenerationally equitable choices when surveying 223 Chinese individuals (Study 1) and 374 online recruited respondents (Study 2). Joint decision making is a powerful, previously untested means to overcome hyperbolic discounting biases in decisions on global common goods dilemmas. We also find policy bundling decreases social responsibility. The joint alternative presentation thus leads to future-orientation versus social responsibility trade-off predicaments in Intergenerational decisions. Policy makers are advised to consider a multi-faceted decision schema and age-differentiated consortia may help implement Intergenerational Equity.
-
on the social representations of Intergenerational Equity
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Julia M PuaschunderAbstract:Social Representations describe the genesis of collective ideas, social norms and general moods. By capturing social perceptions of socio-economic change in times of crises, social representations allow predictions about future behavior of social masses during economic upheaval. The social representations of Intergenerational Equity were retrieved from 110 speeches, interviews and conversations with leaders, practitioners, experts and students representing academia, business, economics, finance, international organizations, media, politics, public affairs and religion at a European future conference during the late summer of 2011. Social representations on Intergenerational Equity comprised of unsustainable pension systems in the light of aging, shrinking Western populations, overindebtedness in the wake of governmental deficit spending and ecologic decline related to climate change and unsustainable consumption patterns. Stakeholder views of Intergenerational Equity included environmentalism on public officials’ and international organizations’ agendas. Politicians connected Intergenerational justice to human rights. The 2008/09 World Financial Crisis impacted Intergenerational Equity by stressing overindebtedness and uncertainty. Nationalism and protectionism appeared to be growing in the finance and corporate worlds during the Eurozone Eurobond negotiations. Intergenerational environmentalism features associations on ecologic sustainability, climate change and sustainable consumption patterns. Global solutions for complex common goods dilemmas and international remedies back Intergenerational justice. Promoting solidarity, ethicality and social responsibility but also innovations and future investment are Intergenerational Equity implementation prerequisites. Intergenerational Equity is obtained by efficiency, humane values and behavioral changes regarding conscientious consumption. Long-term solutions hold institutional regulation and foresighted taxation but also open debates informing global leaders of complex intertemporal frictions.
Benteng Zou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pollution perception a challenge for Intergenerational Equity
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008Co-Authors: Ingmar Schumacher, Benteng ZouAbstract:Abstract In this article we extend the recent literature on overlapping generations and pollution by allowing generations to perceive the level of pollution differently than the actual level of pollution. We call this pollution perception. Pollution perception can visualize itself as either a concern for the flow of pollution only, or for the stock, or a combination of both. We derive this extension based on empirical evidence from recent advances in behavioural economics. Pollution perception has not only significant consequences for the steady state levels of pollution and capital, but we also find a qualitative change in the dynamics from similar models without pollution perception [A. John, R. Pecchenino, An overlapping generations model of growth and the environment, Econ. J. 104 (1994) 1393–1410]. Specifically, we derive optimal non-linear dynamics through complex eigenvalues and Hopf or Flip bifurcations for a large set of parameters. This leads to violations of two standard criteria of sustainability, suggesting that pollution perception can be another source of Intergenerational inEquity.
-
habit in pollution a challenge for Intergenerational Equity
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Ingmar Schumacher, Benteng ZouAbstract:In this article we extend the recent literature on overlapping generations and pollution by allowing each generation's utility to depend on past levels of pollution. To conform with the literature on habit in consumption we call this extension habit in pollution. Habit in pollution can visualize itself as either a concern for the flow of pollution only, or for the stock, or anything in between. We show that habit in pollution has not only significant consequences for the level of pollution and capital, but also for the evolution of utility over time. We observe that habit in pollution can lead to violations of two standard criteria of sustainability, which suggests that habit in pollution can be another source of Intergenerational inEquity.
Stefan Baumgartner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
irreversibility and uncertainty cause an Intergenerational Equity efficiency trade off
Ecological Economics, 2017Co-Authors: Nikolai Hoberg, Stefan BaumgartnerAbstract:Abstract Two important policy goals in Intergenerational problems are Pareto-efficiency and sustainability, i.e. Intergenerational Equity. We demonstrate that the pursuit of these goals is subject to an Intergenerational Equity-efficiency trade-off. Our analysis highlights two salient characteristics of Intergenerational problems and policy: (i) temporal irreversibility, i.e. the inability to revise one's past actions; and (ii) uncertainty of future consequences of present actions in human-environment systems. We employ a two-non-overlapping-generations model that combines an intragenerational production decision on the use of circulating capital and a non-renewable resource, with a negative Intergenerational externality as an unforeseen contingency. If initially unknown problems become apparent and policy is enacted after irreversible actions were taken, policy-making faces a fundamental trade-off between ex-post Pareto-efficiency and sustainability. That is, one can achieve either one of these two goals, but not both.
