Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach
AbstractThis paper proposes a methodological strategy for cost–benefit analysis (CBA) which does not require the assumption that individuals’ preferences satisfy standard coherence conditions, and so renders CBA immune to the problems generated by preference anomalies. The proposal treats CBA as an exercise in market simulation, based on the measurement of surplus. Anomalies occur when surplus measurements vary according to the hypothetical payment mechanism used. In such cases, the mechanism that is the “closest market analogue” should be used. This approach is used to resolve problems associated with some familiar anomalies, including inconsistencies between “citizen” and “consumer” valuations, and endowment effects. Copyright Springer 2005
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 32 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (09)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263
anomalies; cost–benefit analysis; market simulation;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bardsley, Nicholas & Sugden, Robert, 2006. "Human nature and sociality in economics," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Elsevier.
- Jack Knetsch, 2005. "Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analyses Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 91-112, 09.
- Elvik, Rune, 2013. "Paradoxes of rationality in road safety policy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 62-70.
- Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
- James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 199-218, July.
- Kenneth Gillingham & Karen Palmer, 2014.
"Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence,"
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy,
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 18-38, January.
- Gillingham, Kenneth & Palmer, Karen, 2013. "Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence," Discussion Papers dp-13-02-rev, Resources For the Future.
- Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013.
"From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation,"
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
- Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 13-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2012.
"When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 569-584, April.
- Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2011. "When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference," Working Papers 11.06, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
- Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
- Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
- Loomes, Graham, 2006. "(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 713-736, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.