Intergenerational equity

The concept of intergenerational justice (synonym intergenerational equity ) stands for a variety of political and social discussions that questioned the interactions of action between different generations on their righteousness out, including the problem areas of environmental protection and public debt, the demand for a pension reform or even after a possible population policy, as well as the fact of age discrimination in Western societies, such as in the job search, as well as the high level of youth unemployment.

• 4.1 sustainability
• 4.2 time preference
• 4.3 Legal enforcement options

Definition of Terms

The concept of intergenerational equity is made up of the individual words justice and generation. Of these two components, ' difficult to define with certainty, but the term ' generation ' justice is used in different contexts and is ambiguous.

Concept of justice

The concept of justice generally refers to an ideal state of social interaction in which there is a fair, impartial and recoverable balance of interests and the distribution of goods and opportunities between the participating individuals or groups.

Concept generation

There can be four different usages of the term distinguished:

Although the social generation term is very widely used in common parlance, he is eligible for studies on, be intergenerational equity 'is not used because its assignments are too vague and too controversial. For comparisons between generations in the context of justice studies you need a generation term, which is non-overlapping and is based on a steady, uncontroversial feature. Birth cohorts are not as such features suitable embossing. It is also clear that " justice for future generations " with certainty is not a meaningful concept when you have social generations in mind. Finally, one does not know at all whether a future social generation will be dubbed the 2010s or 2020s. Even the familiar concept generation is hardly relevant for studies of intergenerational justice at the societal level. For example, if a 28 -year-old complained that it was unfair towards his generation, that the incumbent politicians failed to protect the environment and nature, it is irrelevant whether this itself already is the father or not.

Two kinds of Generation Compare

In the concept of intergenerational equity comparisons are drawn between generations. A basic distinction is between direct and indirect comparisons. In direct comparison to today's young 'and' old ' compared, for example, by the percentage of members of the second generation ( 31 - to 60 - year olds) and third generation ( 0 - to 30 -year-old ), social assistance relate a point in time (eg in 2005) compares. In an indirect comparison, however, age is compared with the age (or youth with youth). Here we examine, for example, the proportion of youth in all welfare recipients in 2005 and in 1975.

In the debate on intergenerational equity ie especially the chronological meanings 1 ) and 2 ) are relevant. To distinguish between these two meanings in the discussion of intergenerational justice, it is necessary to formulate two different names and thus two different descriptions of intergenerational equity for the two meanings of generation. Until now exists in the scientific discussion, however no clear Begriffsgebung for this distinction.

One way of distinction, which is used by Peter Laslett, the use of the term " intergenerational " for the ratio of current and future generations and the term " intra- generational " for the relationship between different generations alive at the same time. Laslett refers to the additional generation term. However, the term, intra- generational ' due to the wide -spreading use of the narrower generation term is misleading, since the prefix intra " within meaning' and one might assume with reference to the narrower generation term as this term denotes the relationship within an age group, for example, the justice within the group of under- 30 -year-olds.

Logically appears the use of titles, inter-temporal 'and' temporal ' generation and intergenerational equity. Temporal intergenerational justice is thus the fairness among young, middle-aged and elderly people alive today. Intertemporal intergenerational equity is defined as the justice between people who once lived are alive today and who will live in the future.

The principle of intertemporal intergenerational justice can be formulated as follows:

In the definition of " temporal intergenerational justice " have to " future generations " with " MOVED generations " and " today's generation " by preceding them generations ( which today middle and older generation is meant ) replace:

The distinction between direct and indirect comparisons is only possible with the temporal generation term. Intertemporal is indeed within the groups alive today, did not differ between age groups, and therefore no comparisons can be drawn in this regard.

Theories of intergenerational justice in the literature

The Suffizienziarismus judged by an absolute standard of justice: A later generation will be treated fairly if their welfare is at least on the Suffizienzlevel. Whether she is better off or worse than other generations, irrelevant in this regard.

The great majority of philosophers represents in terms of intergenerational justice no absolute standard of human well-being, but a comparative, ie one that specifies the desirable level of well-being compared with other generations. In the context of such comparative standards are strictly egalitarian principles ( just as good as ') almost never postulated. They found, for example at Scherbel: " intergenerational justice means in practice that the today's youth and future generations are to have equal life design opportunities, such as the currently socially and politically responsible generation. " Andrea Heubach writes: " Intergenerational equity is achieved when no one is as members of is a disadvantage certain generation. " This means, conversely, that a preference, both earlier and later generations, is incompatible with intergenerational equity.

As a third possibility in the literature on intergenerational equity comparative standards together with the formulation, at least as good 'is used, but also - fourth - the word' better than ' is needed. Some examples: Similar to John Locke about 300 years earlier ( "at least as much and as good") writes the philosopher Otfried Hoffe: " Responsible parents leave their children an inheritance, which precipitates as possible bigger than they have taken it from their parents. " Rakowski puts it this way: " Everyone who is born into a society that has as a minimum entitlement to the same amount of resources as all have received, who participates in the initial distribution of property and the Community land " Dieter. Birnbacher makes a similar argument: " What he has inherited, he should pass undiminished ( ' store ') and possibly increased ( ' Till ' ) to the future, both as a private citizen and as representatives of a collective. " Kavka proposes the same line: " [ ... ] I interpret this to mean that in this context the question generation their successor generation, at least ' is so good, based on exploitable resources, as it was made ​​by their predecessors. " intuition by James Woodward is not far removed: " Each generation should leave for generations MOVED a range of resources and opportunities that, at least as large ' as the range of its own resources and opportunities. "

In the guild of economists, the principle of non-decreasing welfare is popular. Thus, intergenerational equity is achieved when a once attained level of prosperity in the future is no longer maintained. The economist Robert Solow states: "The duty imposed upon us sustainability, is [... posterity ] equip with all that is necessary so that it has a standard of living that is at least as high as our own. " But even the view that intergenerational justice (not by 'maybe' or ' possible ' limited ) commitment leg hold to increase the well nachrückender generations, has its supporters, and this across all parties and political directions. The economist Richard Hauser formulated: " Each generation should be made ​​to the following a positive net transfer, which is higher than that which they received from their previous generation. " Karl Marx, in the third volume of Capital laid a very similar thought: "Even an entire society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have they improved as bonuses patres familias to future generations to leave. " The most comprehensive theory of betterment of future generations is by Tremmel, who writes: " Intergenerational equity is achieved when the chances of members of the next generation to be able to meet their needs, on average, are better than those of the nationals of its predecessor generation " According to Tremmel put on theories of intergenerational justice three important questions:. ? 1 ) are we coming generations anything at all guilty, 2 ) If so, how large is the extent of our obligations? Is it enough if we leave future generations as much as we ourselves have? Or should we allow our children a better life?, 3 ) What resources or goods, our intergenerational obligations relate? What is a " better life "?

Political discussion

Around since the 1970s, the term " intergenerational equity " used in the literature on the future of the welfare state, in particular the pension system.

The end of 2013 came into office grand coalition (Cabinet Merkel III) operates the decision a " retirement package" s, which is expected to cost about 160 billion euros in 2030 (ie an average of about 10 billion euros per year).

Sustainability

Published in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development ( " Brundtland Commission " ) the so-called Brundtland report. The report is well-known for his definition of Sustainable Development:

The second aspect calls for a holistic behavioral change; this is difficult to operationalize.

From the mid- 1990s, the ratio between old and young and generational conflicts were often described. With the beginning of the sustainability discourse, the term " intergenerational equity " also gained a central role in this. Meanwhile intergenerational justice has captured the political agenda. For example, it has been a goal for several debt brakes ( Switzerland, EU, Germany ).

Preference for the present

A institutionalization of intergenerational equity remains - even in the face of the euro crisis - in the political debate. Some predominantly younger MPs planned 2008/2009, to file a motion on constitutional anchoring of intergenerational justice in the German Bundestag (see Generational Justice Act). The demand for such institutionalization may inherent in a democracy vulnerability are founded, namely the structural preference for the present:

Politicians are most likely to be reelected if they take into account the interests of the present generation. This sets up a problematic incentive for a policy of " glorification of the present and neglect the future" ( Richard von Weizsäcker ). When purchasing today's majorities can the individuals who still have no voting rights ( or even unborn children ), not participate. Election periods can not be too long without being too far back the influence of the voter and thus jeopardize the essence of democracy itself. The effects of current actions as rich but also partly into the future and can the quality of life of many future generations who were not involved in the decision-making process, profoundly negative influence.

Could future generations to assert its interests in the policy-making process claims, the majority situation would be different in important political decisions. Examples:

• Energy Policy: Today's form of energy with a focus on fossil fuels currently allows a uniquely high standard of living, but it takes serious disadvantages in the medium-term future purchase.
• Fiscal Policy: The financing of the current consumption through debt loads shifts in the future and reduces the freedom of future generations to make themselves creatively policy.

Legal enforcement options

The Federal German Basic Law provides far no explicit responsibility for intergenerational equity. The German legal system mainly protects the rights of present individuals ( entities ). For these reasons, the proponents of an ecologically sustainable and just society generation striving to anchor the claims of the Future institutionally.

To achieve this, they keep changing the Basic Law or the functioning of parliaments needed to install representations of future generations (for example, through the establishment of intergenerational justice parliaments or municipal future councils, as in Switzerland and Austria ). Similar initiatives have been, for example, in Israel, Switzerland ( The association of active senior citizen and self-help organizations of Switzerland ) or have already been implemented in Hungary or in the parliamentary decision-making process. In Germany such a generational justice law was debated in parliament in the first reading in October 2007, but received little attention.