IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/205.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In traditional cost-benefit analyses of public projects, every citizen's willingness to pay for a project is given an equal weight. This is sometimes taken to imply that cost-benefit analysis is a democratic method for making public decisions, as opposed to, for example, political processes involving log-rolling and lobbying from interest groups. Politicians are frequently criticized for not putting enough emphasis on the cost-benefit analyses when making decisions. In this paper we discuss the extent to which using cost-benefit analysis to rank public projects is consistent with Dahl's (1989) criteria for democratic decision-making. We find several fundamental conflicts, both when cost-benefit analysis is used to provide final answers about projects' social desirability, and when used only as informational input to a political process. Our conclusions are illustrated using data from interviews with Norwegian politicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 1997. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Discussion Papers 205, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp205.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karine Nyborg, 1996. "The Political Man and Contingent Valuation: Motives Do Count," Discussion Papers 180, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    3. Brekke, Kjell Arne, 1997. "The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 117-123, April.
    4. Peter J. Hammond, 1979. "Straightforward Individual Incentive Compatibility in Large Economies," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(2), pages 263-282.
    5. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1987. "The theory of cost-benefit analysis," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 909-989, Elsevier.
    6. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    7. Fridstrom, Lasse & Elvik, Rune, 1997. "The Barely Revealed Preference behind Road Investment Priorities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 145-168, July.
    8. A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), 1987. "Handbook of Public Economics," Handbook of Public Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    9. Kjell Brekke & Hilde Lurå & Karine Nyborg, 1996. "Allowing disagreement in evaluations of social welfare," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 303-324, October.
    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. Anders Rygh Swensen, 1997. "Change in Regime and Markov Models," Discussion Papers 204, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Project analysis as input to public debate: Environmental valuation versus physical unit indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 393-408, September.

    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. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    2. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Project analysis as input to public debate: Environmental valuation versus physical unit indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 393-408, September.
    4. Medin, Hege & Nyborg, Karine & Bateman, Ian, 2001. "The assumption of equal marginal utility of income: how much does it matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 397-411, March.
    5. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, Treatment, and Palliative Care: The Relative Value of Health Improvements under Alternative Evaluation Frameworks," TSE Working Papers 22-1339, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    7. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    9. David Coady & Jean Dreze, 2000. "Commodity Taxation and Social Welfare: The Generalised Ramsey Rule," Working papers 87, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    10. Hammitt, James K., 2020. "Accounting for the distribution of benefits & costs in benefit-cost analysis," TSE Working Papers 20-1116, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Sandberg Hanssen, Thor-Erik & Jørgensen, Finn, 2015. "Transportation policy and road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 49-57.
    12. Londero, Elio, 1996. "Shadow Pricing Rules for Partially Traded Goods," MPRA Paper 111765, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Guesnerie, R., 1995. "The genealogy of modern theoretical public economics: From first best to second best," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 353-381, April.
    14. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    15. David Coady & Jean Drèze, 2000. "Commodity Taxation and Social Welfare: The Generalised Ramsey Rule," STICERD - Development Economics Papers - From 2008 this series has been superseded by Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers 27, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    16. Matthew Adler & Nicolas Treich, 2015. "Prioritarianism and Climate Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 279-308, October.
    17. Carl Lyttkens, 2003. "Time to disable DALYs?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 195-202, September.
    18. Coady, David & Dreze, Jean, 2000. "Commodity taxation and social welfare: the generalised Ramsey rule," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6651, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Salvador Bertomeu & Antonio Estache, 2016. "Unbundling Political and Economic Rationality: a Non-Parametric Approach Tested on Spain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-17, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Cam Donaldson & Stephen Birch & Amiram Gafni, 2002. "The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 55-70, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Democracy; cost-benefit analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate

    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:ssb:dispap:205. 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: L Maasø (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbgvno.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.