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
Volume (Year): 32 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (09)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263|
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.:
- Jack Knetsch, 2005. "Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analyses Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 91-112, 09.
- Bardsley, Nicholas & Sugden, Robert, 2006. "Human nature and sociality in economics," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Elsevier.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:129-160. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.