IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v7y1979i5p411-419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-benefit analysis--a critique

Author

Listed:
  • Turner, RK

Abstract

This paper surveys some of the main criticisms of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that have emerged over the years. It is noted in passing that views on what type of technique CBA really is, or should be, have differed and continue to differ depending on the set of value judgements used. We emphasise that the more recent suggested extensions to or modifications of CBA have sought to make the technique more comprehensive (i.e. to include distributional, environmental quality and other objectives as well as economic efficiency) at the inevitable cost of a loss of precision. The underlying principles of CBA are examined and the problems of multiple objective planning highlighted. Valuation problems are analysed, in particular with regard to amenity and environmental effects. Finally, the issues of uncertainty, irreversibility and intergenerational equity are raised briefly to indicate the complexity of the decision-making task when large-scale technologically advanced projects have to be appraised. In conclusion it is argued that CBA presented in a disaggregated format, as a comprehensive method for the ordering of information and a testing procedure for a range of valuations can perform a useful role in the decision-making process. The term 'policy analysis' is probably a better one for this broader view of the use of CBA. Ultimately we seem to be searching for a synthesis of the participatory and the traditional (technocratic) style of decision-making though we have a long and difficult course to chart before we even approach such a goal.

Suggested Citation

  • Turner, RK, 1979. "Cost-benefit analysis--a critique," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 411-419.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:7:y:1979:i:5:p:411-419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(79)90110-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.

    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:eee:jomega:v:7:y:1979:i:5:p:411-419. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.