Positive versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy
What is the rationale for benefit-cost analysis (BCA)? The answer is critical for determining how BCA should be conducted and interpreted, and identifying its implications for policy. This article examines two possible justifications for BCA: positive and normative. The positive rationale is that BCA identifies policy changes whereby those who benefit could, in theory, compensate those who are harmed. The normative rationale is that BCA identifies social improvements (e.g., by approximating a utilitarian calculus or protecting against cognitive error in policy choice). The standard approach to BCA assumes that the positive and normative justifications coincide. However, when human behavior differs from what is assumed in standard economic models, these justifications may conflict. In this case, individuals may dislike a change in circumstances that economic models predict they should prefer. The positive justification for BCA is consistent with respect for individual autonomy and provides clarity about methodological choices in the analysis (i.e., that the objective is to incorporate people's apparent preferences as accurately as possible), but it may also require accepting cognitive and behavioral errors that individuals would wish to avoid. The normative justification implies rejecting policies that the population may prefer and requires determining what preferences are normatively acceptable. The article argues that the choice of justification is part of a larger issue concerning the appropriate role of representative government. (JEL: D61, D81, H40, Q50) Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.
Volume (Year): 7 (2013)
Issue (Month): 2 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
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.:
- Cropper, Maureen L. & G. Sussman, Frances, 1990. "Valuing future risks to life," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 160-174, September.
- George Wu & John List & Uri Gneezy, 2006.
"The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome,"
Framed Field Experiments
00152, The Field Experiments Website.
- Uri Gneezy & John A List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect Is Valued Less Than Its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309, November.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
- Jack Knetsch, 2010. "Values of Gains and Losses: Reference States and Choice of Measure," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 179-188, June.
- John List, 2004.
"Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: Evidence from the marketplace,"
Framed Field Experiments
00175, The Field Experiments Website.
- List, John A., 2004. "Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 486-509, May.
- Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, 09.
- Daniel S. Putler, 1992. "Incorporating Reference Price Effects into a Theory of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 287-309.
- Han Bleichrodt & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2006. "Willingness to pay for reductions in health risks when probabilities are distorted," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 211-214.
- repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
- 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,
De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-51, April.
- Hammitt, James & Robinson, Lisa, 2010. "Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards," LERNA Working Papers 11.02.336, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
- Hammitt, James & Robinson, Lisa, 2010. "Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards," TSE Working Papers 10-269, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
- John A. List, 2003.
"Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71, February.
- John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
- Robert Sugden, 2005. "Coping with Preference Anomalies in Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Market-Simulation Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 129-160, 09.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- V. Smith & Eric Moore, 2010. "Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 217-234, June.
- Zeckhauser, Richard, 2008.
"Overreaction to Fearsome Risks,"
Working Paper Series
rwp08-079, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
- Christian Gollier, 2012. "Pricing the Planet's Future: The Economics of Discounting in an Uncertain World," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9894, April.
- Robert W. Hahn & Richard L. Schmalensee & Roger Noll & Robert Stavins & Lester B. Lave & George C. Eads & Milton Russell & V. Kerry Smith & Maureen L. Cropper & Paul R. Portney & Kenneth J. Arrow, 1996. "Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51790, 5.
- Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:renvpo:v:7:y:2013:i:2:p:199-218. 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: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.