IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Benchmarks and Economic Analysis

  • Hsiung Bingyuan

    (National Taiwan University)

Registered author(s):

    This paper analyzes a concept that has attracted relatively little attention in the literature, even though the concept is important to both theoretical analysis and human behavior in general. Specifically, the concept of a benchmark and its implications are explored. In advancing an argument, economists are taking the existing literature as the departure point and trying to add value. Controversies and/or debates between economists are often related to the fact that their arguments are based on different benchmarks. In addition, benchmarks are also prevalent in the other social sciences, with Weber’s ideal types in sociology and various doctrines in legal studies as clear examples. Both theoretical and behavioral benchmarks are illustrated, and a synthesis is provided. In essence, benchmarks are tools and the functioning and maintenance of these tools are affected by cost/benefit considerations pertaining to all tools. Moreover, as behaviors are inevitably related to benchmarks, having a better benchmark improves the efficiency of resource allocation. It is argued that the economic worldview, once adopted, constitutes a useful benchmark for the general public. The reasons are provided and possible ingredients of such a worldview are suggested.

    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:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Review of Law & Economics.

    Volume (Year): 5 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 1 (March)
    Pages: 75-99

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:5:y:2009:i:1:n:4
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:5:y:2009:i:1:n:4. 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: (Peter Golla)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.