Who has standing in cost-benefit analysis?
The issues involved in deciding whose preferences are to be counted in cost-benefit analysis are often misunderstood or controversial. This paper attempts to resolve the issues in a number of particular cases by looking to the fundamental value assumptions underlying cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis is useful only to the extent that there exists a general consensus that the value assumptions are legitimate. Certain implications of the value assumptions prove useful in deciding what preferences have standing.
Volume (Year): 9 (1990)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- A. Meltzer & Peter Ordeshook & Thomas Romer, 1983. "Introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 1-5, January.
- Gary S. Becker, 1974.
"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,"
in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- A. P. Thirlwall, 1983. "Introduction," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 5(3), pages 341-344, April.
- David A. Long & Charles D. Mallar & Craig Thornton, 1981. "Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of the Job Corps," Mathematica Policy Research Reports ba3a91e82f5f43b48bab18ea4, Mathematica Policy Research.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:9:y:1990:i:2:p:201-218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.