An axiomatic approach to sustainable development

Abstract

The paper proposes two axioms that capture the idea of sustainable development and derives the welfare criterion that they imply. The axioms require that neither the present nor the future should play a dictatorial role.Theorem 1 shows there exist sustainable preferences, which satisfy these axioms.They exhibit sensitivity to the present and to the long-run future, and specify trade-offs between them. It examines other welfare criteria which are generally utilized: discounted utility, tim inf. long run averages, overtaking and catching-up criteria, Ramsey's criterion, Rawlsian rules, and the criterion of satisfaction of basic needs, and finds that none satisfies the axioms for sustainability.Theorem 2 gives a characterization of all continuous independent sustainable preferences. Theorem 3 shows that in general sustainable growth paths cannot be approximated by paths which approximate discounted optima. Proposition 1 shows that paths which maximize the present value under a standard price system may fail to reach optimal sustainable welfare levels, and Example 4 that the two criteria can give rise to different value systems.

Uncertainty and Amenity Values in Renewable Resource Economics

“…Finally, in certain societies, forest appears as a religious sanctuary. Chichilnisky (1996) bases her second fundamental property of sustainable growth upon this duality in the environmental asset valuation. For the author, society must explicitly weight the environment according to its both intrinsic and instrumental values.…”

Safe climate policy is affordable—12 reasons

“…Environmental economists have long thought about uncertainty, irreversibility and precaution, which has given rise to option value theory (Arrow and Fisher 10 An alternative social welfare specification to the discounted utility framework is the Chichilnisky (1996) criterion: maximizing a weighted average of a discounted sum of utilities plus the terminal utility value (thus assuming a finite time horizon). 1974).…”

A Multigenerational Game Model to Analyze Sustainable Development

“…An interesting aspect of the problem is that abatement decided by the current generation, if any, will be made for the benefit of generations in a rather distant future and for the benefit of populations that are not currently the principal emitters. More generally the evaluation of sustainable development policies poses an ethical challenge addressed in Beltratti, Chichilnisky, and Heal (1995) and Chichilnisky (1996Chichilnisky ( , 1997 through an axiomatic approach. In this paper we focus on the operational aspect of the problem: how to perform cost benefit analysis (CBA) for very long lived projects that overlap several generations?…”