IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/noj/journl/v26y2000p83-93.html

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal

Author

Listed:
  • Karine Nyborg
  • Inger Spangen

Abstract

In traditional cost-benefit analyses of public projects, every citizen’s willingness to pay for a project is given an equal weight. This is sometimes taken to imply that cost-benefit analysis is a democratic method for making public decisions, as opposed to, for example, political processes involving log-rolling and lobbying from interest groups. Politicians are frequently criticized for not putting enough emphasis on the cost-benefit analyses when making decisions. In this paper we discuss the extent to which using cost-benefit analysis to rank public projects is consistent with Dahl’s (1989) criteria for democratic decision-making. We find several fundamental conflicts, both when cost-benefit analysis is used to provide final answers about projects’ social desirability, and when used only as informational input to a political process. Our conclusions are illustrated using data from interviews with Norwegian politicians.

Suggested Citation

  • Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 2000. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 83-93.
    • Handle: RePEc:noj:journl:v:26:y:2000:p:83-93
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nopecjournal.org/NOPEC_2000_a04.pdf
    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. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    2. David Besanko & Avner A. Kreps & Clair Yang, 2024. "Rules for the rulemakers: asymmetric information and the political economy of benefit-cost analysis," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 1-51, August.
    3. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Project analysis as input to public debate: Environmental valuation versus physical unit indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 393-408, September.
    4. Anders Rygh Swensen, 1997. "Change in Regime and Markov Models," Discussion Papers 204, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:noj:journl:v:26:y:2000:p:83-93. 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: Halvor Mehlum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nopecjournal.org .

    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.