Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Comment: Does benefit cost analysis stand alone? rights and standing


Author Info

  • Richard O. Zerbe

    (Professor in the Graduate School of Public Affairs and Adjunct Professor at the School of Law and also the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Washington)

Registered author(s):


    The issue of standing in benefit cost analysis is not different from the issue of rights. Benefit cost analysis contributes to legal analysis and also rests upon legal analysis. Debates about standing issues can be reinterpreted as questions of the role of benefit cost analysis when rights are uncertain at the margin. This perspective illumines such questions as whether gains to the criminal count and what weight should be given to expert opinion, to irrational fears, and to gains or losses by foreigners. This perspective is also consistent with a rights-based interpretation of 1) the willingness-to-pay approach, 2) an approach that considers distributional consequences, and 3) an approach that ignores distributional consequences when the costs of determining them are likely to be greater than the benefits.

    Download Info

    If 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.
    File URL:
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

    Volume (Year): 10 (1991)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 96-105

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page:

    Related research



    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:
    as in new window
    1. Richard Thaler & William Gould, 1982. "Public policy toward life saving: Should consumer preferences rule?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(2), pages 223-242.
    2. William N. Trumbull, 1990. "Reply to whittington and macRae," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 548-550.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:
    1. Jonathan A. Lesser & Richard O. Zerbe, 1994. "Discounting procedures for environmental (and other) projects: A comment on Kolb and Scheraga," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 140-156.
    2. Campbell, Harry F. & Brown, Richard P.C., 2005. "A multiple account framework for cost-benefit analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 23-32.
    3. Bauman, Yoram & Finkle, Aaron & Zerbe, Jr., Richard O., 2005. "An Aggregate Measure for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Working paper 310, Regulation2point0.
    4. 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.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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