Ulysses Revisited - A Closer Look At The Safe Minimum Standard Rule
The Safe Minimum Standard (SMS) Rule has been developed as a decision rule involving environmental assets, particularly species, that face some risk of extinction. The SMS rule has been presented by Bishop (1978) (1979) and Randall (1991) as a better decision process than the use of cost benefit analysis (CBA). This paper explores the relationship between the SMS rule and CBA. It shows that there is a tandem effect in operation because the use of both rules rely on the same underlying preferences in society. There is potential for the two rules to achieve the same results, and doubt over whether the SMS rule is an independent control over CBA. Instead, the SMS rule may simply operate as a nagging mechanism for issues of particular interest. Its use can be seen as a signal to switch to a more intensive examination of costs and benefits, and justified in this format because the benefits of more accurate decisions outweigh the costs of operating the SMS rule. The application of the SMS rule will vary according to the justification for its use.
Volume (Year): 39 (1995)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200|
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www.aares.info/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
- Norton, Bryan G., 1989. "Intergenerational equity and environmental decisions: A model using Rawls' veil of ignorance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 137-159, May.
- V. Kerry Smith & John V. Krutilla, 1979. "Endangered Species, Irreversibilities, and Uncertainty: A Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(2), pages 371-375.
- Tacconi, Luca & Bennett, Jeff, 1995. "Economic implications of intergenerational equity for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 209-223, March.
- Tisdell, Clem, 1990. "Economics and the debate about preservation of species, crop varieties and genetic diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 77-90, April.
- Costanza, Robert, 1989. "What is ecological economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, February.
- Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.