How (not) to Lie with Benefit-Cost Analysis
Benefit-cost analysis is seen by some as a controversial activity in which the analyst can significantly bias the results. This note highlights some of the ways that analysts can "lie" in a benefit-cost analysis but more importantly, provides guidance on how not to lie and how to better inform public decisionmakers.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: UMBC Department of Economics 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore MD 21250, USA|
Web page: http://www.umbc.edu/economics
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), 2013. "Principles and Standards for Benefitâ€“Cost Analysis," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15126.
- Richard O. Zerbe & Tyler Blake Davis & Nancy Garland & Tyler Scott, 2013. "Conclusion: principles and standards for benefitâ€“cost analysis," Chapters, in: Principles and Standards for Benefitâ€“Cost Analysis, chapter 11, pages 364-443 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Scott Farrow & W. Kip Viscusi, 2013. "Towards principles and standards for the benefitâ€“cost analysis of safety," Chapters, in: Principles and Standards for Benefitâ€“Cost Analysis, chapter 5, pages 172-193 Edward Elgar Publishing.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:umb:econwp:1304. 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: (Christelle Viauroux)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.