IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aub/uhewps/2003_04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Munda

    (Departament d'Economia i d'Història Econòmica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Abstract

The main argument developed here is the proposal of the concept of “Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation” (SMCE) as a possible useful framework for the application of social choice to the difficult policy problems of our Millennium, where, as stated by Funtowicz and Ravetz, “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. This paper starts from the following main questions: 1. Why “Social” Multi-criteria Evaluation? 2. How such an approach should be developed? The foundations of SMCE are set up by referring to concepts coming from complex system theory and philosophy, such as reflexive complexity, post-normal science and incommensurability. To give some operational guidelines on the application of SMCE basic questions to be answered are: 1. How is it possible to deal with technical incommensurability? 2. How can we deal with the issue of social incommensurability? To answer these questions, by using theoretical considerations and lessons learned from realworld case studies, is the main objective of the present article.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Munda, 2003. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE)," UHE Working papers 2003_04, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament d'Economia i Història Econòmica, Unitat d'Història Econòmica.
  • Handle: RePEc:aub:uhewps:2003_04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.h-economica.uab.es/wps/2003_04.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, pages 191-208.
    2. Philippe Vincke, 1994. "Recent progresses in Multicriteria Decision-Aid," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, pages 21-32.
    3. Munda, Giuseppe, 1996. "Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 157-168, November.
    4. Roy, Bernard, 1990. "Decision-aid and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 324-331, April.
    5. Bromley, Daniel W., 1998. "Searching for sustainability: The poverty of spontaneous order," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 231-240, February.
    6. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    7. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    8. Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1986. "On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the noncompensatory approach)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 288-294, February.
    9. Giuseppe Munda, 1997. "Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics, and the Concept of Sustainable Development," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 6(2), pages 213-233, May.
    10. Kleijnen, J. P. C., 2001. "Ethical issues in modeling: Some reflections," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 223-230, April.
    11. De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
    12. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:aub:uhewps:2003_04. 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: (Jesus Ramos-Martin). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/heuabes.html .

    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.