Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach
This paper proposes a methodological strategy for cost–benefit analysis (CBA) which does not require the assumption that individuals’ preferences satisfy standard coherence conditions, and so renders CBA immune to the problems generated by preference anomalies. The proposal treats CBA as an exercise in market simulation, based on the measurement of surplus. Anomalies occur when surplus measurements vary according to the hypothetical payment mechanism used. In such cases, the mechanism that is the “closest market analogue” should be used. This approach is used to resolve problems associated with some familiar anomalies, including inconsistencies between “citizen” and “consumer” valuations, and endowment effects. Copyright Springer 2005
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 32 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (09)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Postal:c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2|
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.:
- Bardsley, Nicholas & Sugden, Robert, 2006. "Human nature and sociality in economics," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Elsevier.
- Jack Knetsch, 2005. "Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analyses Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 91-112, 09.