IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecdequ/v9y1995i4p324-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Response: The Use of Economic Analysis in Public Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Wim Wiewel

Abstract

Morales and colleagues deserve credit for extending traditional economic analysis by using anthropological field data and applying midlevel economic tools to policy analysis. However, their analysis is problematic because it exaggerates how many benefits would be lost if the Maxwell Street Market were moved, ignores the costs imposed by the market, and does not consider the economic benefits of the university's proposed land use. Even very moderate success of the university's plans will more than compensate for the economic losses caused by the market's move. It was politically impossible for the university to implement its expansion plans while maintaining the market. Such difficult choices inevitably arise in a complex urban environment. Cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool, but provides only some of the information that enters into the decision-making process. Thus analysts must be modest in the claims they make for the policy relevance of their data.

Suggested Citation

  • Wim Wiewel, 1995. "Response: The Use of Economic Analysis in Public Policy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 9(4), pages 324-326, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:9:y:1995:i:4:p:324-326
    DOI: 10.1177/089124249500900404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124249500900404
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/089124249500900404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:sae:ecdequ:v:9:y:1995:i:4:p:324-326. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.