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. Harberger, Arnold C, 1978. "On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 87-120, April.
    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. 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.
    3. Coate, Stephen, 2000. "An Efficiency Approach to the Evaluation of Policy Changes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 437-455, April.
    4. repec:ags:ucdegw:232849 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Udo Ebert, 1986. "Equity and distribution in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 67-78, December.
    6. Asplund, Disa & Pyddoke, Roger, 2018. "Can increases in public transport supply be justified by concern for low-income individuals?," Working papers in Transport Economics 2018:7, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI), revised 30 Mar 2020.
    7. 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.
    8. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Martin, Will, 2021. "Tools for measuring the full impacts of agricultural interventions," IFPRI-MCC technical papers 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Thomas van der Pol & Frits Bos & Gerbert Romijn, 2017. "Distributionally Weighted Cost-Benefit Analysis: From Theory to Practice," CPB Discussion Paper 364.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    11. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson, 2019. "Should values of time be differentiated?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 357-375, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Martin, Will & Ivanic, Maros & Mamun, Abdullah, 2021. "Modeling Development Policies with Multiple Objectives," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315330, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. David Canning, 2013. "Axiomatic Foundations For Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1405-1416, December.
    15. Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer, 2013. "An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit–cost analysis to social policy," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 1, pages 25-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. 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.
    17. Jason Shogren, 2002. "Valuing Indirect Effects From Environmental Hazards On A Child’s Life Chances," NCEE Working Paper Series 200209, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2002.
    18. Raúl Castro & Jorge Armando Rueda Gallardo, 2020. "Estimación Empírica de la Tasa Social de Descuento Estudio de Caso Bolivia," Documentos CEDE 18020, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).
    21. 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.

    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.