IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v11y2002i1p27-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Benefit Analysis, Incommensurability and Rough Equality1

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Aldred

Abstract

A recurring question about cost-benefit analysis (CBA) concerns its scope. CBA is a decision-making method frequently employed in environmental policy-making, in which things which have no market price are treated as if they were commodities. They are given a monetary value, a form of price. But it is widely held that some things cannot be meaningfully priced, thus substantially limiting the scope of CBA. The aim of this paper is to test some aspects of this broad claim, focusing on problems of incomparability and incommensurability. In particular, the role of rough equality as a putative form of comparison is investigated. I argue that while an assessment of the full significance of rough equality for practical decision-making awaits resolution of a number of important technical questions, it does not provide a strong enough form of comparison to support CBA.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Aldred, 2002. "Cost-Benefit Analysis, Incommensurability and Rough Equality1," Environmental Values, , vol. 11(1), pages 27-46, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:27-46
    DOI: 10.1177/096327190201100103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/096327190201100103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/096327190201100103?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. Layard,Richard & Glaister,Stephen (ed.), 1994. "Cost-Benefit Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521466745.
    2. Dorman,Peter, 2009. "Markets and Mortality," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521123044.
    3. Broome,John, 1999. "Ethics out of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644914.
    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. Giovanni Lombardo & Andrea Mazzocchetti & Irene Rapallo & Nader Tayser & Silvano Cincotti, 2019. "Assessment of the Economic and Social Impact Using SROI: An Application to Sport Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Ole Røgeberg & Morten Nordberg, 2005. "A defence of absurd theories in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 543-562.
    3. Hans Gersbach & Amihai Glazer, 2009. "High Compensation Creates a Ratchet Effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(539), pages 1208-1224, July.
    4. Mononen, Petri & Leviäkangas, Pekka & Haapasalo, Harri, 2017. "From internal efficiency to societal benefits – Multi modal transport safety agency's socio-economic impact analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 78-90.
    5. Preston Greene, 2024. "Social bias, not time bias," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 100-121, February.
    6. Olof Johansson-Stenman & James Konow, 2010. "Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 147-166, June.
    7. Matthew Cole & Robert Elliott & Joanne Lindley, 2009. "Dirty money: Is there a wage premium for working in a pollution intensive industry?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 161-180, October.
    8. Alejandro Donado, 2015. "Why Do Unionized Workers Have More Nonfatal Occupational Injuries?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 68(1), pages 153-183, January.
    9. Gul, Ejaz, 2013. "Economic Evaluation of Project Site Using Cardinal Numbers Approach," MPRA Paper 48283, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    11. Alcaraz Carrillo de Albornoz, Vicente & Molina Millán, Juan & Lara Galera, Antonio & Muñoz Medina, Belén, 2022. "Road speed limit matters – Are politicians doing the right thing?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. D. Moellendorf, 2011. "A normative account of dangerous climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(1), pages 57-72, September.
    13. Dietz, Simon, 2009. "From efficiency to justice: utility as the informational basis of climate change strategies, and some alternatives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37616, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Biancardo, Salvatore Antonio & Gesualdi, Michele & Savastano, Davide & Intignano, Mattia & Henke, Ilaria & Pagliara, Francesca, 2023. "An innovative framework for integrating Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) within Building Information Modeling (BIM)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Afanasiev, Roman (Афанасьев, Роман), 2015. "Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the Russian Federation within the state programs [Оценка Эффективности Расходов Субъектов Российской Федерации В Рамках Государственных Программ]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 6, pages 99-108.
    16. Dasgupta, P., 2016. "Birth and Death," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1660, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Fabrizio Battisti & Orazio Campo, 2021. "The Assessment of Density Bonus in Building Renovation Interventions. The Case of the City of Florence in Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    18. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle, 2018. "Continuity and completeness of strongly independent preorders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 141-145.
    19. Lina Eriksson, 2010. "Choice under description: The motivational nexus," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(2), pages 159-187, May.
    20. Heilmann, Conrad, 2008. "A representation of time discounting," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 23858, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:sae:envval:v:11:y:2002:i:1:p:27-46. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.