An Intergenerational Issue: The Equity Issues Due to Public–Private Partnerships; The Critical Aspect of the Social Discount Rate Choice for Future Generations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the impact of Social Discount Rate (SDR) choice on intergenerational equity issues caused by Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) projects. Indeed, more PPPs mean more debt being accumulated for future generations leading to a fiscal deficit crisis. The paper draws on how the SDR level taken today distributes societies on the Social Welfare Function (SWF). This is done by answering two sub-questions: (i) What is the risk of PPPs’ debts being off-balance sheet? (ii) How do public policies, based on the envisaged SDR, position society within different ethical perspectives? The answers are obtained from a discussion of the different SDRs (applied in the UK for examples) according to the merits of the pertinent ethical theories, namely libertarian, egalitarian, utilitarian and Rawlsian. We find that public policymakers can manipulate the SDR to make PPPs looking like a better option than the traditional financing form. However, this antagonises the Value for Money principle. We also point out that public policy is not harmonised with ethical theories. We find that at present (in the UK), the SDR is somewhere between weighted utilitarian and Rawlsian societies in the trade-off curve. Alas, our study finds no evidence that the (UK) government is using a sophisticated system to keep pace with the accumulated off-balance sheet debts. Thus, the exact prediction of the final state is hardly made because of the uncertainty factor. We conclude that our study hopefully provides a good analytical framework for policymakers in order to draw on the merits of ethical theories before initiating public policies like PPPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it