IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v13y1995i3p88-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Can Economic Analysis Contribute To The ‘Sustainability’ Debate?

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan A. Lesser
  • Richard O. Zerbe

Abstract

Economics generally, and benefit‐cost analysis in particular, are not substitutes for values. They are tools of analysis that rest on assumptions about values. The primary role for economics in normative analysis is to provide information about efficiently achieving that which is valued, not to make the decision. The major economic tool for analyzing normative issues is benefit‐cost analysis. This paper considers the role of benefit‐cost analysis in addressing the sustainability debate. The notion of “sustain‐ability” raises concerns about values held by society. The analysis here addresses several issues within the sustainability debate: concerns about intergenerational equity including the appropriate discount rate for projects with environmental consequences; implications for burdens on future generations; and the moral basis for benefit‐cost analysis. The authors argue that the correct discount rate for all such projects is the social rate of time preference, and that suggestions for using lower discount rates result from attempting to prevent inequities by adjusting prices. Additionally, the authors argue that economic analysis, especially benefit‐cost analysis, can play a useful role in providing information to decision makers, who ultimately will face resource allocation issues as they seek to implement policies promoting sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan A. Lesser & Richard O. Zerbe, 1995. "What Can Economic Analysis Contribute To The ‘Sustainability’ Debate?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(3), pages 88-100, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:13:y:1995:i:3:p:88-100
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1995.tb00725.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1995.tb00725.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1995.tb00725.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808, Decembrie.
    2. Knetsch, Jack L., 1990. "Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 227-237, May.
    3. Friend, Anthony M. & Rapport, David J., 1991. "Evolution of macro-information systems for sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 59-76, March.
    4. Richard C. Bishop, 1978. "Endangered Species and Uncertainty: The Economics of a Safe Minimum Standard," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(1), pages 10-18.
    5. Richard Howarth & Richard Norgaard, 1993. "Intergenerational transfers and the social discount rate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(4), pages 337-358, August.
    6. William N. Trumbull, 1990. "Who has standing in cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 201-218.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark A. Moore & Anthony E. Boardman & Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer & David H. Greenberg, 2004. "“Just give me a number!” Practical values for the social discount rate," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 789-812.
    2. Richard O. Zerbe, 1998. "Is cost-benefit analysis legal? Three rules," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 419-456.

    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. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    2. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Quaas, Martin F., 2009. "Ecological-economic viability as a criterion of strong sustainability under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2008-2020, May.
    3. Dovers, Stephen R., 1995. "A framework for scaling and framing policy problems in sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 93-106, February.
    4. Werner Hediger, 1997. "Ecological Economics Of Sustainable Development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(3), pages 101-109.
    5. Bart Muys, 2013. "Sustainable Development within Planetary Boundaries: A Functional Revision of the Definition Based on the Thermodynamics of Complex Social-Ecological Systems," Challenges in Sustainability, Librello publishing house, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52.
    6. Eckehard Rosenbaum & Biagio Ciuffo, 2017. "Sustainability via Intergenerational Transfers in a Stock-Flow-Consistent Model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 147-184, February.
    7. John C. V. Pezzey, 2004. "Sustainability Policy and Environmental Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(2), pages 339-359, June.
    8. Rollins, Kimberly & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Net Social Costs of Preserving Biological Diversity," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258702, University of Guelph.
    9. Padilla, Emilio, 2002. "Intergenerational equity and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 69-83, April.
    10. Norgaard, Richard B., 1992. "Sustainability and the economics of assuring assets for future generations," Policy Research Working Paper Series 832, The World Bank.
    11. Howarth, Richard B., 2007. "Towards an operational sustainability criterion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 656-663, September.
    12. YUNG-JAAN Lee, 1999. "Sustainable wetland management strategies under uncertainties," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 67-79, March.
    13. Tony Hodge, 1997. "Toward A Conceptual Framework For Assessing Progress Toward Sustainability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 5-98, January.
    14. Amy Sinden & Douglas A. Kysar & David M. Driesen, 2009. "Cost–benefit analysis: New foundations on shifting sand," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 48-71, March.
    15. Alan Randall, 2014. "Weak sustainability, conservation and precaution," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 10, pages 160-172, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Klara Helene Stumpf & Stefan Baumgärtner & Christian U. Becker & Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, 2015. "The Justice Dimension of Sustainability: A Systematic and General Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-35, June.
    17. Stuart Harris, 1996. "Economics of the Environment: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 72(217), pages 154-171, June.
    18. Klepper, Gernot, 1995. "Sustainability and intergenerational transfers," Kiel Working Papers 683, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2008. "3-D Sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a Sustainable Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 496-506, January.
    20. Mechthild Donner & Anne Verniquet & Jan Broeze & Katrin Kayser & Hugo de Vries, 2021. "Critical success and risk factors for circular business models valorising agricultural waste and by-products," Post-Print hal-03004851, HAL.

    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:bla:coecpo:v:13:y:1995:i:3:p:88-100. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.