IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v10y1991i1p96-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard O. Zerbe, 1991. "Comment: Does benefit cost analysis stand alone? rights and standing," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 96-105.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105
    DOI: 10.2307/3325515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3325515
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/3325515?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. 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.
    2. Dale Whittington & Duncan Macrae, 1990. "Comment: Judgments about who has standing in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 536-547.
    3. 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.
    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. Richard W. Dunford & F. Reed Johnson & Emily S. West, 1997. "Whose Losses Count In Natural Resource Damages?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 77-87, October.
    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. 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.
    4. Anthony E. Boardman & David H. Greenberg & Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer, 2022. "Standing in Cost‐Benefit Analysis: Where, Who, What (Counts)?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1157-1176, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Dale Whittington & Richard T. Carson & Thomas Sterner, 2023. "Policy Note: Benefit Cost Analysis of Water Investments in the Anthropocene," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, July.
    7. Edward Stringham & Ilkay Pulan, 2006. "Evaluating Economic Justifications for Alcohol Restrictions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 971-990, October.
    8. Zerbe, Richard Jr. & Bauman, Yoram & Finkle, Aaron, 2006. "An aggregate measure for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 449-461, June.
    9. Richard Zerbe, 2004. "Should moral sentiments be incorporated into benefit-cost analysis? An example of long-term discounting," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 305-318, December.

    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. Anthony E. Boardman & David H. Greenberg & Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer, 2022. "Standing in Cost‐Benefit Analysis: Where, Who, What (Counts)?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1157-1176, September.
    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. Dale Whittington & Richard T. Carson & Thomas Sterner, 2023. "Policy Note: Benefit Cost Analysis of Water Investments in the Anthropocene," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, July.
    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.
    5. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    6. Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Ethical benefit–cost analysis as art and science: ten rules for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 8, pages 264-293, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Dale Whittington & Duncan Macrae, 1990. "Comment: Judgments about who has standing in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 536-547.
    8. Timothy L. McDaniels, 1988. "Comparing Expressed and Revealed Preferences for Risk Reduction: Different Hazards and Question Frames," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 593-604, December.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105. 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: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.