IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v10y1991i1p96-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comment: Does benefit cost analysis stand alone? rights and standing

Author

Listed:
  • Richard O. Zerbe

    (Professor in the Graduate School of Public Affairs and Adjunct Professor at the School of Law and also the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Washington)

Abstract

The issue of standing in benefit cost analysis is not different from the issue of rights. Benefit cost analysis contributes to legal analysis and also rests upon legal analysis. Debates about standing issues can be reinterpreted as questions of the role of benefit cost analysis when rights are uncertain at the margin. This perspective illumines such questions as whether gains to the criminal count and what weight should be given to expert opinion, to irrational fears, and to gains or losses by foreigners. This perspective is also consistent with a rights-based interpretation of 1) the willingness-to-pay approach, 2) an approach that considers distributional consequences, and 3) an approach that ignores distributional consequences when the costs of determining them are likely to be greater than the benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard O. Zerbe, 1991. "Comment: Does benefit cost analysis stand alone? rights and standing," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 96-105.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105
    DOI: 10.2307/3325515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3325515
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Thaler & William Gould, 1982. "Public policy toward life saving: Should consumer preferences rule?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(2), pages 223-242.
    2. William N. Trumbull, 1990. "Reply to whittington and macRae," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 548-550.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Richard W. Dunford & F. Reed Johnson & Emily S. West, 1997. "Whose Losses Count In Natural Resource Damages?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 77-87, October.
    2. Campbell, Harry F. & Brown, Richard P.C., 2005. "A multiple account framework for cost-benefit analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 23-32.
    3. Richard O. Zerbe, 1998. "Is cost-benefit analysis legal? Three rules," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 419-456.
    4. Jonathan A. Lesser & Richard O. Zerbe, 1994. "Discounting procedures for environmental (and other) projects: A comment on Kolb and Scheraga," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 140-156.
    5. Zerbe, Richard Jr. & Bauman, Yoram & Finkle, Aaron, 2006. "An aggregate measure for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 449-461, June.

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:10:y:1991:i:1:p:96-105. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.