Objective or Multi-Objective? Two Historically Competing Visions for Benefit-Cost Analysis
As they embraced benefit-cost analysis during the mid twentieth century, economists faced several challenges. One challenge was to reconcile two visions for the place of the economist in policy analysis, one limited to providing positive analysis for decision-makers, the other allowing normative judgments. This tension came to a crisis when, in the 1960s, the Water Resources Council introduced multi-objective benefit-cost analysis. The surrounding debate highlights the way philosophical differences can drive the technical details of policy analysis, the way political debates can overshadow academic ones, and the way even social scientists in a narrow subfield can profoundly misunderstand one another.
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.:
- Daniel W. Bromley & Bruce R. Beattie, 1973. "On the Incongruity of Program Objectives and Project Evaluation: An Example from the Reclamation Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 55(3), pages 472-476.
- Gary D. Cobb, 1973. "Evolving Water Policies in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 55(5), pages 1003-1007.
- Harberger, Arnold C, 1971. "Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 785-97, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:1:p:3-23. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.