Open Access

This dissertation concerns the question of how economics can contribute to the analysis of trade-offs between values (or normative objectives). The analysis is illustrated for the case of policies that pursue the goal of sustainability. Methodologically, this is done by reflecting economic concepts in light of philosophical theories and using generic models to analyze trade-offs between particular values. In sum, the work shows how economics can help in analyzing the factual relationships between values by clarifying the set of feasible acts and outcomes. The first paper of this cumulative dissertation concerns the question what a general definition of efficiency with respect to normative objective implies about relationships between two values. In order to conceptualize relationships between values carefully, the analysis distinguishes instrumental from intrinsic values and discusses the question whether there is one intrinsic value (value monism) or many intrinsic values (value pluralism). Next, a small economic model is used to show that there can be different relationships between values such as win-win relationships and trade-offs in value-efficient states if there are three or more values. Further, the distinction between Pareto-efficiency (based on individual preferences) and value-efficiency (which can also include non-preference values) is used to study relationships between values. The second paper uses the definition of sustainability as inter- and intragenerational justice to discuss the relationship between these two objectives. The general aim of this paper is to discuss what economic concepts can contribute to the discussion of tradeoffs between justices. For this, a syntax of the concept of justice is employed, different relationships between justices are defined and economic concepts such as scarcity, efficiency and opportunity costs are transferred to the justice context. One result from this analysis is that there must be a trade-off between these two justices in such respective efficient outcomes. The third paper concerns an intertemporal mechanism leading to the well-known equity-efficiency trade-off in an intergenerational setting. For this, two central characteristics of intergenerational policy making are taken into account: irreversibility and ignorance (or unawareness). A pertinent example is the irreversible use of fossil fuels before and after the discovery of the effect of CO2 emissions on climate change. The trade-off between Pareto-efficiency and intergenerational equity that results from these two characteristics is shown in a model with two non-overlapping generations which use a non-renewable resource. In the model there is initial unawareness about an intergenerational externality from resource use that is only discovered after the irreversible use of the resource. A central result of the paper is the trade-off between intergenerational equity and efficiency that emerges if initially unknown sustainability problems arise after irreversible policies have been enacted. The fourth paper concerns the question what the concept of merit goods can contribute to discussions of sustainability. For this, the history of the concept is discussed, then merit goods are defined and connected to the philosophical literature on different conceptions of well-being. In the next step different challenges and opportunities of merit good arguments are discussed for the sustainability context. For example, it becomes clear that merit good arguments concern conceptions of well-being and do not directly concern the aspect of intergenerational distribution in sustainability problems.