Suchergebnisse

Egalitarian theories assume, without defending it, the view that the costs of children should be shared between non-parents and parents. This standard position is called into question by the Parental Provision view. Drawing on the familiar idea that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their choices, the Parental Provision view holds that under certain conditions egalitarian justice requires parents to pay for the full costs of their children, as it would be unfair for non-parents to bear the negative externalities of others' choices to have children. This article examines closely the Parental Provision view and argues that various possible justifications for it are unsuccessful. In so doing, it brings to light respects in which the choice to have and rear children is special and may not be treated as being on a par with other choices for which we think people should be held responsible.

Of late the world has realized that the growth models that believed in growth- environment tradeoff are not sustainable. In the pursuit of increasing their GDP, countries have ignored the negative externalities of growth, which would seriously threaten the survival of the future generation. Two kinds of damage are caused by unsustainable growth. Firstly, productive base, particularly, natural capital, like forest, minerals, energy, is depleting. Secondly, environmental pollution and climate change caused by excessive CO2 emissions are threatening human lives in terms of deteriorating health conditions and increasing temperature level (OECD, 2012). In the light of these concerns, sustainable development has become an important goal of nations. This study attempts to assess the extent of negative externalities in India and analyze the relationship between negative externalities and growth of GNI. The study finds that the economic growth of India is more sustainable as compared to all income categories countries. Further, the analysis detected a bidirectional relationship between negative externalities and GNI growth in the post-1990s.
Keywords: Negative Externalities, Sustainable Development, and Genuine Saving Rate.
JEL Classification: Q560

Objectives. Conventional theory regarding externalities and personal choices implies that in the absence of negative externalities, there is no economic rationale for government to regulate or ban those choices. We evaluate whether legally recognizing (or prohibiting) same‐sex marriage has any adverse impact on societal outcomes specifically related to "traditional family values."Methods. Using data from 1990 to 2004 in the U.S. states, with statistical controls appropriate for the particular model, and with fixed effects, we test the claim of the Family Research Council that same‐sex marriage will have negative impacts on marriage, divorce, abortion rates, the proportion of children born to single women, and the percent of children in female‐headed households.Results. We find no statistically significant adverse effect from allowing gay marriage. Bans on gay marriage, when they are not overturned, appear to be associated with a lower abortion rate and a lower percentage of children in female‐headed households. However, allowing gay marriage also shows the same or stronger associations.Conclusions. The argument that same‐sex marriage poses a negative externality on society cannot be rationally held. Although many might believe that this conclusion is so obvious that it does not warrant testing, many politicians use this argument as a fact‐based rationale to legitimize bans on same‐sex marriage.

An extensive body of research investigates the emergence and characterization of dishonesty by means of the die-under-cup paradigm. However, most of the previous studies do not take into account the negative externalities of unethical behavior, since lying to increase the liar`s payoff only decreases the experimental budget. In this chapter, we experimentally investigate the effect of imposing negative externalities on a charity organization when cheating. In a sample composed by 192 students, comparison between our Baseline treatment and our Charity treatment reveals no significant difference on subjects` reporting decision. Our analysis does not provide any statistical support to the hypothesis that dishonest behavior may be lower when negative externalities associated with unethical behavior are affecting a charity organization rather than the experimental budget.

PurposeWhile the commons problem and the issues related to the negative externalities of harvesting have been studied extensively, there remains a need to bridge these two streams of studies to comprehensively investigate the implications of the strategic interactions among resource harvesters in the presence of such negative externalities. This paper aims to fill this gap.Design/methodology/approachThe authors study a common-pool harvest problem when the extractive activities leave behind negative externalities which affect the resource growth rate and reduce the stock beyond the extracted levels. Markov perfect noncooperative and optimal solutions are presented under different scenarios regarding considerations of negative externalities into harvest decisions.FindingsResults of the study suggest that, in the presence of such externalities, all parties must scale down their extraction in accordance with their externalities. The resource can be preserved by implementation of such harvest rule. However, failure to incorporate the externalities exacerbates the commons problem and can even lead to exhaustion of the biomass even if countries manage to cooperate and coordinate their harvest. Suggesting that if such externalities are large enough – which empirical literature suggests they are – then recognition and consideration of these externalities in the harvest decisions is as crucial as cooperation.Originality/valueThis paper provides a framework that is capable of incorporating the negative externalities of harvest activities into a bioeconomic game theoretic model and thereby providing a more real-world representation of the state of the common-pool resource management. While, the authors extend a well-known simple model, the model of this research study has the capacity to explain the widespread incidences of resource collapses. Therefore, the important policy implication is that agents should rigorously work together to understand the extent of the negative externalities of their harvests on the resources.

An externality is a cost that a corporation's actions impose on society. For example, a power plant may emit mercury, but might not pay for the cost of that pollution to the people living near the plant. It is possible to analyze a diverse range of problems of society in these terms, including the health effects of corporate practices, the unsustainability of manufacturing processes, and marketing of products contributing to environmental damage, and economic policies that maintain high levels of poverty due to effective lobbying by the business community. This paper examines the problem of externalities in terms of metacontingencies. Externalities continue precisely because there is no cost to the organizations for practices that impose these costs on third parties. The paper describes the cultural practices needed to influence governments are motivated to make corporations bear the true costs of their practices—costs that are currently imposed on others.