David Donaldson was born in Peterborough, Ontario on July 5, 1938 and passed away on June 9, 2026 in Vancouver, just shy of his 88th birthday.
David received a B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Toronto in 1960 and graduated from Stanford University with a Ph.D. in Economics in 1966. He spent his entire career at the University of British Columbia’s Department of Economics, which he joined in 1964 and where he stayed until his retirement in 1998.
David’s remarkable research accomplishments were recognized in 1995 with the Isaac Walton Killam Senior award. Starting in 2001, David was a CIREQ Associate Research Fellow at the Université de Montréal. He was invited to deliver the Arrow Lecture at the 2008 Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare.
David was the recipient of U.B.C. teaching awards in 1992 and 1996 in recognition of his outstanding teaching. He was well-loved by his students and served as a role model for generations of Ph.D. students. David was renowned for speaking about "these little guys" whiletwisting the curls in his hair when illustrating economic principles. On four occasions, David taught in U.B.C.’s Arts I programme, which is an interdisciplinary great books course for first- year undergraduates. One of his students in Arts I was his future co-author John Weymark, who credits David for his decision to become an economist and his interest in social choice theory. Another co-author, Krishna Pendakur, was also inspired to be an economist after having had
David as an undergraduate teacher.
David is best known for his research on social choice theory, welfare economics, normative measures of inequality and poverty, and population ethics. He wrote over 100 articles and co-authored one monograph. That the U.B.C. Economics Department was among the world leaders in social choice theory (and normative economics in general) for quite some time can, to a large extent, be attributed to his outstanding research contributions.
David’s publications reflect his life-long passion for justice, equity, and the social good, and the normative arguments that support their achievement. Having had Ken Arrow as a teacher and thesis supervisor at Stanford helped direct him towards social choice theory and welfare economics as the subjects that would be the focus of his research. Amartya Sen’s Collective Choice and Social Welfare (Holden–Day, 1970) and John Rawls’ "Justice as Fairness" (Journal of Philosophy, 1957) and A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971) cemented this interest.
It is impossible in a few paragraphs to do full justice to the breadth and depth of David’s research accomplishments. Below are selective remarks on what can be considered as being some of his most impactful publications.
David first gained an international reputation for his work with Charles Blackorby on normatively significant measures of inequality and poverty. Their ’’Measures of Relative Equality and Their Meaning in Terms of Social Welfare" (Journal of Economic Theory, 1978), ’’A Theoretical Treatment of Absolute Indices of Inequality’’ (International Economic Review, 1980), and "Ethical Indices for the Measurement of Poverty" (Econometrica, 1980) have been particularly influential. ’’A Single-Parameter Generalization of the Gini Indices of Inequality’’ (Journal of Economic Theory, 1980), written with Weymark, introduced and axiomatically characterized a one-parameter class of inequality indices that include the Gini index as a special case. The parameter captures the degree to which inequality aversion is taken into account. This class of indices has been employed in many empirical studies of inequality.
Beginning with "Utility vs. Equity: Some Plausible Quasi-Orderings" (Journal of Public Economics, 1977), written with Blackorby, David published a number of important articles about collective decision-making when interpersonal comparisons of well-being are included in the toolbox that is at the disposal of a public decision maker. In collaboration with Blackorby and Weymark, in ’’Social Choice with Interpersonal Utility Comparisons: A Diagrammatic Introduction’’ (International Economic Review, 1984), David developed a diagrammatic representation of the possibilities that emerge in social choice problems when various forms of interpersonal comparisons of well-being are possible. This article serves as the basis of a number of textbook treatments of this problem.
David’s path-breaking article with Blackorby, ’’Social Criteria for Evaluating Population Change’’ (Journal of Public Economics, 1984), introduced a novel form of utilitarianism––critical-level level utilitarianism. Critical-level utilitarianism recommends against bringing individuals into existence if their lifetime well-beings are expected to be below a threshold that represents a minimally acceptable quality of life––the critical level. This article provided the foundation for an extensive body of research on population ethics that remains active to the present time. It also served as the starting point of a long-term project on population ethics (with Blackorby and later also with Walter Bossert) that culminated in their monograph, Population Issues in Social Choice Theory, Welfare Economics, and Ethics (Cambridge University Press,2005). David was a committed utilitarian, and his 2002 survey article ’’Utilitarianism and the Theory of Justice’’ with Blackorby and Bossert in the Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 1 (North-Holland) is a widely consulted reference.
Less well known are David’s forays into the ethics of animal exploitation. David was once selected to serve as a representative on U.B.C.’s animal care committee. The remit of this committee was to ensure that the treatment of animals used in research conforms to appropriate ethical principles. One of the issues the committee confronted focused on the following question: If harmful experimental treatments are to be administered more than once, should the same laboratory animals be used repeatedly, or is it ethically preferable to use different animals in each instance? Because these animals are brought into existence solely for the purpose of being used in research, this is a genuine variable-population issue. Together with Blackorby (who served on the same committee at a different time), David came up with a clear answer: If the harm done by each experiment is sufficiently large (which was, by all reasonable measures, the case at the time), it is preferable that the same animals be used repeatedly. This is a consequence of using the critical-level utilitarian criterion that they had developed. A somewhat similar analysis can be applied to animals that are used for human food consumption. In addition to providing recommendations that were well-received within the context of their committee responsibilities, the two of them published their findings in an important article, ’’Pigs and Guinea Pigs: A Note on the Ethics of Animal Exploitation’’ (Economic Journal, 1992). These contributions to animal ethics are a good example of the practical relevance of much of David’s work.
David had an enormous and lasting impact on his colleagues, students, co-authors, and the wider community of scholars interested in social choice theory and welfare economics. From the beginning of his career, David’s interests went well beyond the traditional confines of economics. Much of his work was of significant relevance for political and moral philosophers (including both theoretical and applied ethicists). The members of these communities enthusiastically welcomed him in their midst. A commitment to social justice was an important part of David’s life. His student days at Stanford coincided with the heyday of the civil rights movement, which David strongly endorsed. He was also an active supporter of the peace movement and participated in the Vancouver peace walk for as long as his health permitted him to do so. He also joined numerous initiatives and events to combat climate change. His compassionate positions on social issues were guided by the strong and highly compelling ethical principles he adhered to.
Music was a great passion throughout David’s life. He started playing the piano, the organ, and several brass instruments in his childhood. Later, he developed an interest in folk music and added the guitar to his repertoire. After the onset of rheumatism in the early 1980s, David was no longer able to play most of these instruments, so he instead focused on wind instruments––the recorder and various types of whistles in particular. In addition to playing privately and performing in public both as an instrumentalist and in a church choir, David enjoyed composing music. He issued two CDs that he recorded, edited, and mastered himself before having them reproduced.
David was an amazing human being who was renowned for his kindness and compassion. He was also the best friend one could wish for. David will be missed by his loved ones, his friends, and a multitude of members of the academic community. The world became a better place because we were fortunate to have him with us for almost nine decades.
Walter Bossert (Université de Montréal), John A. Weymark (Vanderbilt University)
