The evaluation of development processes and of public policies often involves comparisons of social states in which populations differ in size and longevity. This requires social evaluation principles to be sensitive to both the number and the length of lives. This pape... View more
Proof: The result follows directly from Theorem 3 and the characterization of generalized utilitarianism given in Theorem 5 (pp. 561-562) of Blackorby et al. (2002).
Acz´el, J. (1966): Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications, New York: Academic Press.
Blackorby, C., W. Bossert, and D. Donaldson (1995): “Intertemporal Population Ethics: Critical-Level Utilitarian Principles,” Econometrica, 63, 1303-20.
--- (1996a): “Intertemporally Consistent Population Ethics: Classical Utilitarian Principles,” in Social Choice Re-examined, ed. by K. Arrow, A. Sen, and K. Suzumura, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, vol. 2, 137-162.
--- (1996b): “Quasi Ordering and Population Ethics,” Social Choice and Welfare, 13, 129-150.
--- (1997a): “Birth-Date Dependent Population Ethics: Critical-Level Principles,” Journal of Economic Theory, 77, 260-84.
--- (1997b): “Intertemporally Consistent Population Ethics: Birth-Date Dependent Classical Principles,” The Japanese Economic Review, 48, 267-292.
--- (2002): “Utilitarianism and the theory of justice,” in Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, ed. by K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, Elsevier, vol. 1 of Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, chap. 11, 543-596.
--- (2005): Population issues in social choice theory, welfare economics and ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blackorby, C. and D. Donaldson (1984): “Social Criteria for Evaluating Population Change,” Journal of Public Economics, 25, 13-33.