Pure time preference in intertemporal welfare economics
Economics and Philosophy 33 (3):441-473 (2017)
Abstract
Several areas of welfare economics seek to evaluate states of affairs as a function of interpersonally comparable individual utilities. The aim is to map each state of affairs onto a vector of individual utilities, and then to produce an ordering of these vectors that can be represented by a mathematical function assigning a real number to each. When this approach is used in intertemporal contexts, a central theoretical question concerns the evaluative weight to be applied to utility coming at different times. This question concerns the rate of pure time preference, which is one key determinant of the social discount rate. This article argues that the standard philosophical account of pure time preference is mistaken, because it ascribes to economists a methodological commitment they need not, and often do not, accept. This in turn undercuts the most common philosophical objection to pure time preference, which traces at least to Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. The article then evaluates three further objections to pure time preference, concluding that it might still be defensible under certain circumstances. The article closes by articulating a final argument that is suggested by the “Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts and Methods” chapter of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. If this further argument is sound, it would constitute a decisive objection to pure time preference as it currently figures in much intertemporal welfare economics.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1017/s0266267117000074
My notes
Similar books and articles
Pure time preference.Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):490-508.
Pure time preference.Martin Peterson Rosemary Lowry - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):490-508.
Symposium on Amartya Sen’s philosophy: 2 Unstrapping the straitjacket of ‘preference’: a comment on Amartya Sen’s contributions to philosophy and economics.Elizabeth Anderson - 2001 - Economics and Philosophy 17 (1):21-38.
Elements of an Evolutionary Theory of Welfare: Assessing Welfare When Preferences Change.Martin Binder - 2010 - Routledge.
Climate Ethics: Justifying a Positive Social Time Preference.Joseph Heath - 2017 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (4):435–462.
Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare. [REVIEW]Jelle de Boer - 2014 - Economics and Philosophy 30 (1):99-103.
The Scope and Limits of Preference Sovereignty.Tyler Cowen - 1993 - Economics and Philosophy 9 (2):253.
Discounting, Time Preference, and Identity.Shane William Frederick - 2000 - Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University
Climate change, intergenerational equity and the social discount rate.Simon Caney - 2014 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13 (4):320-342.
Hausman and McPherson on welfare economics and preference satisfaction theories of welfare: A critical note.Alexander F. Sarch - 2015 - Economics and Philosophy 31 (1):141-159.
Lifetime Uncertainty and Time Preference.Nicolas Drouhin - 2001 - Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):145-172.
Capital, Interest, and Professor Kirzner.Roger W. Garrison - 2002 - Journal des Economistes Et des Etudes Humaines 12 (2).
Analytics
Added to PP
2017-01-12
Downloads
2,906 (#1,474)
6 months
296 (#1,460)
2017-01-12
Downloads
2,906 (#1,474)
6 months
296 (#1,460)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
What Do Climate Change Winners Owe, and to Whom?Kian Mintz-Woo & Justin Leroux - 2021 - Economics and Philosophy 37 (3):462-483.
Discounting, Climate Change, and the Ecological Fallacy.Matthew Rendall - 2019 - Ethics 129 (3):441-463.
Principled Utility Discounting Under Risk.Kian Mintz-Woo - 2019 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 6 (1):89-112.
The only ethical argument for positive δ? Partiality and pure time preference.Andreas L. Mogensen - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (9):2731-2750.
Descriptive versus Prescriptive Discounting in Climate Change Policy Analysis.Kelleher J. Paul - 2017 - Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 15:957-977.