IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rmm/journl/v0y2009i32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aus oekonomischer Sicht ..

Author

Listed:
  • Weyma Luebbe

    (Universitaet Regensburg)

Abstract

Economists, and notably health economists, very often add to their policy recommendations the formula ,from an economic point of view'. The contribution starts by exploring what the message of this clause to non-economists might be. The vagueness that it brings about as to the general acceptability of claims to ,rational' allocation, ,best' outcomes etc. is then, first, assessed with respect to the recent debate about IQWiG's (the German equivalent to Britain's NICE) unorthodox methodology of health care evaluation. Weaknesses within the theoretical basis of standard health economist's evaluations, well-known by theoretical economists but rarely mentioned when it comes to policy advice, are then, second, pointed out. Finally, some consequences are drawn for what has to be done to enhance the quality and impact of policy advice in the area of health resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Weyma Luebbe, 2009. "Aus oekonomischer Sicht ..," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 0(32), November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rmm-journal.de/downloads/033_luebbe.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deschamps, Robert & Gevers, Louis, 1977. "Separability, risk-bearing, and social welfare judgements," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 77-94.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean Spears & Mark Budolfson, 2021. "Repugnant conclusions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(3), pages 567-588, October.
    2. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gevers, Louis, 2002. "Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 459-541, Elsevier.
    3. Itai Sher, 2020. "How perspective-based aggregation undermines the Pareto principle," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 182-205, May.
    4. Anirudha Balasubramanian, 2015. "On weighted utilitarianism and an application," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(4), pages 745-763, April.

    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:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:32. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Friederike Pförtner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hfbfide.html .

    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.