IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/acb/agenda/v20y2013i2p77-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critique of the Productivity Commission's Cost-Benefit Analysis in the 'Disability Care and Support' Report

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Harrison

Abstract

In its 2011 NDIS report, the Productivity Commission rationalises its policy recommendation by means of a cost-benefit analysis, claiming that 'the benefits of the [National Disability Insurance] scheme would significantly outweigh the costs'. But methodology the PC adopts departs from conventional cost-benefit analysis in ways that understates costs, presumes the benefits, muddies policy comparisons, and jumbles equity and efficiency issues. These problems are traceable to the Commission's use of a 'distributional weights approach' to equity benefits. The 'basic needs approach' is an alternative way of dealing with equity considerations that better captures the underlying preferences of citizens and the rationale for disability care and support policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Harrison, 2013. "A Critique of the Productivity Commission's Cost-Benefit Analysis in the 'Disability Care and Support' Report," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 20(2), pages 77-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:acb:agenda:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:77-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p269601/pdf/a-critique.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo & Arnold C. Harberger, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment Decisions: Chapter 14 (The Shadow Price of Government Funds, Distributional Weights, and Basic Needs Externalitiess)," Development Discussion Papers 2011-14, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Arnold C. Harberger, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," NBER Chapters, in: Research in Taxation, pages 87-120, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Slemrod, Joel & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2001. "Integrating Expenditure and Tax Decisions: The Marginal Cost of Funds and the Marginal Benefit of Projects," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(2), pages 189-202, June.
    2. repec:ags:ucdegw:232849 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Udo Ebert, 1986. "Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 67-78, December.
    4. Heckman, James, 2001. "Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(475), pages 654-699, November.
    5. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson, 2019. "Should values of time be differentiated?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 357-375, May.
    7. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rose, Adam, 2008. "Equity and Justice in Global Warming Policy," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 135-176, October.
    8. John Piggott, 1982. "The Social Marginal Valuation of Income: Australian Estimates from Government Behaviour," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 58(1), pages 92-99, March.
    9. Jason Shogren, 1998. "A Political Economy in an Ecological Web," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 557-570, April.
    10. Chisari, Omar O. & Rodríguez-Pardina, Martín, 1998. "Algunos determinantes de la inversión en sectores de infraestructura en la Argentina," Series Históricas 7445, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    11. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    12. Moshirian, Fariborz & Tian, Xuan & Zhang, Bohui & Zhang, Wenrui, 2021. "Stock market liberalization and innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(3), pages 985-1014.
    13. Humavindu, Michael N, 2008. "Essays on the Namibian Economy," Umeå Economic Studies 745, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    14. Fertő, Imre, 1998. "Az agrárpolitika politikai gazdaságtana I. A kormányzati politikák modellezése a mezőgazdaságban [The political economy of agrarian politics. Part I. Modeling of governmental policies in agricultur," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 223-246.
    15. Eliasson, Jonas & Savemark, Christian & Franklin, Joel, 2020. "The impact of land use effects in infrastructure appraisal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 262-276.
    16. Robert W. Hahn & Robert D. Metcalfe, 2021. "Efficiency and Equity Impacts of Energy Subsidies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1658-1688, May.
    17. Tom Burns & Ewa Roszkowska, 2009. "A social procedural approach to the Pareto optimization problematique: Part II. Institutionalized procedures and their limitations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 805-832, September.
    18. Nurmi, Väinö & Ahtiainen, Heini, 2018. "Distributional Weights in Environmental Valuation and Cost-benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 217-228.
    19. Udo Ebert, 2007. "Redistributional Preference in Environmental Policy," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 63(4), pages 548-562, December.
    20. Robin Boadway, 2017. "Second-Best Theory: Ageing well at Sixty," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 249-270, May.
    21. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 144-158.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:acb:agenda:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:77-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feanuau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.