Future discounting—the tendency to prefer immediate rewards over future benefits—is a well-studied phenomenon in economics, psychology, and policy-making. Despite decades of research, the literature remains fragmented across disciplines, making it difficult for researchers, policymakers, and educators to gain a holistic understanding. A synthesis of this scattered knowledge could clarify theoretical disagreements, highlight practical applications, and reveal gaps in current research.

The Core Idea

One way to address this gap would be a systematic review that consolidates key research on future discounting. This could involve:

• Gathering seminal and recent papers across economics (e.g., intertemporal choice models), psychology (e.g., behavioral biases), and environmental studies (e.g., long-term policy implications).
• Organizing findings into themes, such as the differences between theoretical models (e.g., exponential vs. hyperbolic discounting), empirical evidence, and policy applications.
• Publishing the results as an open-access review or interactive resource with visual summaries to improve accessibility.

Such a synthesis could benefit multiple stakeholders, including academics seeking a unified reference, policymakers needing clear guidance on long-term planning, and educators looking for structured teaching materials.

How It Fits with Existing Work

While prior reviews like Frederick et al. (2002) and Dasgupta (2008) have explored aspects of discounting, they tend to focus narrowly—either on individual decision-making or specific applications (e.g., climate policy). A more comprehensive approach could bridge these perspectives by integrating newer research and highlighting interdisciplinary connections. This would help resolve definitional differences (e.g., "discount rate" in economics vs. psychology) and illuminate how varying assumptions impact real-world decisions.

Potential Execution

To test feasibility, a simpler initial version could involve:

1. Scoping existing literature through targeted keyword searches and citation mapping.
2. Drafting a condensed thematic summary (e.g., a blog post or annotated bibliography) to gauge interest.
3. Refining the full review based on feedback, possibly partnering with interdisciplinary advisors to minimize bias.

Funding might come from research grants or institutional partnerships, with outputs tailored to both academic and policy audiences.