Intergenerational Justice Prize (IJP)

Working towards ‘intergenerational justice’ requires a solid understanding of the term ‘generation’ and the kinds of generational comparisons one can meaningfully make. Two kinds of intergenerational comparison are often identified in the literature: between young and old generations today, considered at a snapshot, and between those alive today and those alive tomorrow, ideally taking into account their whole life courses. These comparisons correspond to two potential intergenerational injustices, namely gerontocracy and presentism. Climate change, as one example, is better looked at across an entire lifetime of a representative of a specific birth cohort, whereas compulsory service years are an issue for a snapshot comparison. Gerontocratic and presentist systems seem to persist globally.

Active and passive voting eligibility are just two areas which indicate that we live in a gerontocracy (e.g. a state, society, or group governed by and for old people). In most democracies, young people are barred from voting under 18 years old. For this reason, and amplified by demographic change in the West, older people represent an increasingly dominant section of the electorate. Even in countries with youthful populations, young people are underrepresented and excluded. Such political marginalisation arguably prevents young and old viewing each other as moral equals.

Moreover, societies the world over display a concerning presentist bias (e.g. a bias towards the here and now over the future). To name a few examples: Climate change is jeopardising succeeding generations and biodiversity loss is accelerating, threatening ecosystems and future resources. In a different area, delayed responses to demographic changes have led to unsustainable social welfare systems. Finally, many democratic governments continue to accumulate excessive public debt, pushing financial burdens onto future generations.