IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v2y2011i02p1-51_00.html

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Robinson, Lisa A.
  • Hammitt, James K.

Abstract

As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.

Suggested Citation

  • Robinson, Lisa A. & Hammitt, James K., 2011. "Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-51, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:2:y:2011:i:02:p:1-51_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588800000166/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    2. Nerhagen, Lena & Pyddoke , Roger & Jussila Hammes, Johanna, 2014. "Response to a social dilemma : an analysis of the choice between an economic and an environmental optimum in a policy making context," Working papers in Transport Economics 2014:8, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    3. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    4. Scott Farrow & W. Kip Viscusi, 2013. "Towards principles and standards for the benefit–cost analysis of safety," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 5, pages 172-193, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Kip Viscusi, W. & Gayer, Ted, 2016. "Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 69-91, April.
    6. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    7. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the Value of a Statistical Life: A Cross Country Comparison," TSE Working Papers 23-1439, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Louise Russell, 2014. "The Science of Making Better Decisions about Health: Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis," Departmental Working Papers 201406, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    9. Rikke Søgaard & Jes Lindholt & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 397-405, November.
    10. James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(2), pages 199-218, July.
    11. Massimo Anelli & Felix Koenig, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Workplace Safety," CESifo Working Paper Series 9469, CESifo.
    12. Thomas J. Kniesner, 2019. "Behavioral economics and the value of a statistical life," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 207-217, June.
    13. Bruno Karoubi & R駩s Chenavaz, 2015. "Prices for cash and cash for prices? Theory and evidence on convenient pricing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(38), pages 4102-4115, August.
    14. Gabriela Mundaca, 2024. "Economic valuation of environmental and health impacts from mining: the case of Peru," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 2415-2441, January.
    15. Gillespie, Rob & Kragt, Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    16. Salminah, Mimi & Loch, Adam & Prowse, Thomas A.A. & O'Connor, Patrick J., 2026. "Formation of biodiversity restoration payment acceptance: A review from socio-psychological and experimental economic perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    17. Hanadi Fahad Alothman & Lina Bashatah & Abdulaziz Salem Aldossari & Mousa S. Alfaifi & Abdullah Almutairi & Abdulrahman A. Alshuaibi & Hayat Abdulrahman Alajlan & Safana Aseri & Ahmad Yahya Aseery & N, 2024. "How Saudi parents rationalize the choice of school for their children," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    19. Helen G. Levy & Edward C. Norton & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2018. "Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, Winter.
    20. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the value of a statistical life: A cross country comparison," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    21. Jin, Yana & Andersson, Henrik & Zhang, Shiqiu, 2020. "Do preferences to reduce health risks related to air pollution depend on illness type? Evidence from a choice experiment in Beijing, China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    22. Ginés de Rus, 2025. "Evaluación Económica de Políticas Públicas," Working Papers 2025-06, FEDEA.
    23. Robinson, Lisa A. & Hammitt, James K., 2013. "Skills of the trade: valuing health risk reductions in benefit-cost analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 107-130, March.

    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:cup:jbcoan:v:2:y:2011:i:02:p:1-51_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    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.