IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v29y2000i2p971-1003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Stupidity of the Cost-Benefit Standard

Author

Listed:
  • Richardson, Henry S

Abstract

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is often touted as providing not just an important base of information useful in evaluating government programs, but a general standard of public choice that will help insure the wise and intelligent use of our limited resources. This article argues that (wholly apart from its deficiencies in other respects) CBA cannot provide such a standard. Intelligent deliberation is shown to require a willingness and ability to refashion aims in light of new information that comes in. Cost-benefit analysis, both in general and as a possible standard of choice in the context of democratic lawmaking, makes no room for this crucial aspect of intelligent deliberation. Calling its standard "stupid" for this want of intelligence would be unwarranted if no more intelligent mode of political decision making were available, but there is. The article closes by sketching this superior mode. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Richardson, Henry S, 2000. "The Stupidity of the Cost-Benefit Standard," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 971-1003, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:29:y:2000:i:2:p:971-1003
    DOI: 10.1086/468102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468102
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/468102?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Ethical benefit–cost analysis as art and science: ten rules for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 8, pages 264-293, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Michael Makowsky & Richard Wagner, 2009. "From scholarly idea to budgetary institution: the emergence of cost-benefit analysis," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 57-70, March.
    3. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Downs, Timothy John & Larson, Heidi Jane, 2007. "Achieving Millennium Development Goals for health: Building understanding, trust and capacity to respond," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 144-161, October.

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:29:y:2000:i:2:p:971-1003. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.