Nancy J. Altman · September 2009
77 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1383 (2009)
What do generations owe one another? Professor Buchanan subjects to rigorous examination the commonly expressed platitude that we are obligated to future generations. In doing so, he makes a valuable contribution to the literature and thinking about intergenerational equity. In his perceptive analysis, he offers several important insights often missing from that literature. He points out that even pessimistic projections indicate that future generations will be much wealthier than we are, assuming no change whatsoever in current public policy. He also reminds us that those future generations are likely to contain disparities of wealth, just as ours does. In a world where policymakers and analysts blithely assert, without careful analysis, that we owe some undefined duty to future generations, a group they generally treat as a monolith, Professor Buchanan provides a welcome nuanced and sophisticated frame in which to evaluate public policy.
Professor Shaviro addresses a similar set of concerns but focuses his analysis through the lens of the projected funding gap in the federal budget. Consistent with Professor Buchanan’s conclusion, Professor Shaviro’s discussion insightfully reveals that a generational frame does not provide a clear answer regarding intergenerational equity in the context of the federal budget. On grounds of efficiency, however, he argues that the funding gap be closed sooner rather than later.
Both analyses are excellent as far as they go. Professor Buchanan, however, leaves unasked a counterpart question, which, if subjected to the same rigorous analysis, would further enlighten the current debate over intergenerational equity and lead to greater distributive justice. Professor Shaviro, for his part, fails to diagnose clearly why we have a projected long-range funding gap in the federal budget. Without a clear analysis of the cause, we are in danger of taking actions which are ineffective in closing the funding gap. Moreover, those well-intentioned but misconceived actions could easily undermine the goal of distributive justice, resulting in substantially less inter- and intragenerational fairness.
Part I of this Comment highlights and addresses Professor Buchanan’s missing question. Part II places Professor Shaviro’s analysis in a larger context. Building on those discussions, Part III suggests a direction out of the funding gap, a direction that reconciles Professor Buchanan’s concern for greater distributive justice with Professor Shaviro’s concern for greater efficiency—one that is fair to all generations.
