Construct · 2 fields · 3 citations

Where does bequest collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, two constructs Nearest construct by meaningresourcecompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to bequest is resource.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

bequest2 CONSTRUCTSBequest motiveBERNHEIM · BEQUEST MOTIVEBequest valueKRUTILLA · FUTURE VALUE

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Economics of the household

The motive for leaving wealth to heirs

The reason a person carries wealth to the end of life and passes it to heirs rather than spending it, treated as something a model of saving and consumption must explain. Economists sort these reasons into families: an altruistic motive, where parents value their children's welfare, which Becker's 1974 A Theory of Social Interactions formalised; an accidental motive, where people simply die before running down precautionary savings; and a strategic motive, where Bernheim, Shleifer, and Summers's 1985 The Strategic Bequest Motive showed a parent can hold wealth back to shape a child's attention and behaviour. The referent is a behavioural driver inside a saving model, inferred from how people hold and give wealth, and it is neither the will clause that carries out the gift nor the preservation value a resource holds for the unborn.[1][2]

Unit
A parameter or hypothesis in a lifecycle saving model explaining transfers to heirs
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Tested against data on savings, transfers, and how bequests respond to family behaviour and to the number and attention of heirs

Environmental and resource economics

The value of preserving a resource for the future

The worth people place on keeping a natural or cultural resource intact so that future generations can have it, counted as one part of a resource's total economic value and separate from any use they make of it themselves. Krutilla's 1967 Conservation Reconsidered argued that people gain satisfaction simply from knowing that a wilderness or species is preserved and will pass to those who come after, an insight that later work grouped with existence value under the heading of non-use value. The referent is a number attached to a forest, river, or heritage site by the willingness of the living to protect it for descendants, and it has nothing to do with a clause in a will or a household's private reason for saving.[3]

Unit
A monetary non-use value assigned to a preserved resource, per person or per household
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Elicited by stated-preference surveys, chiefly contingent valuation, that ask what people would pay to preserve a resource for future generations

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how bequest sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

charity3 fields · 9 citationsjingle · one word, three constructsaccidental2 fields · 3 citationsjingle · one word, two constructsannuity3 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, three constructs

References

  1. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093. https://doi.org/10.1086/260265
  2. Bernheim, B. D., Shleifer, A., & Summers, L. H. (1985). The strategic bequest motive. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1045–1076. https://doi.org/10.1086/261351
  3. Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review, 57(4), 777–786.

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct