Standing in Cost‐Benefit Analysis
Where, Who, What (Counts)
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 11684127 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Anthony E Boardman (0000-0002-3264-966X, autor correspondente), David H Greenberg (0000-0002-6004-3171), Aidan R Vining (0000-0002-9195-6205), David L Weimer (0000-0001-9237-623X) |
| Ano | 2022 |
| Volume | 41 |
| Fascículo | 4 |
| Páginas | 1157-1176 |
| Data de publicação | 2022-05-18 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0276-8739 • E-ISSN: 1520-6688 |
| Editora | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/pam.22397 |
| OpenAlex | W4280604085 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 6 |
| Referências citadas | 42 |
Whose costs and benefits should count in cost‐benefit analysis (CBA)? This is an important practical question requiring answers for analysts because most government agencies offer only permissive or vague guidance. Drawing primarily on foundational CBA principles, we present a conceptual framework for specifying standing to answer three important boundary questions: Where? Who? What? First, a standing framework requires a definition of jurisdictional boundaries (the “where” question), whether national, subnational, or supranational. Second, a framework should be clear about which persons within the jurisdiction have standing (the “who” question). For example, should undocumented residents have standing? Third, the framework requires clarity on the standing of certain individual preferences (the “what” question), such as for harmfully addictive private or public goods that express “moral sentiments,” or when choices do not maximize the value of consumption. We seek to provide guidance for CBA practice within this framework
Ambiguity · Boundary (topology · Business · CLARITY · Conceptual framework · Consumption (sociology · Cost–benefit analysis · Economics · Government (linguistics · Jurisdiction · Law and economics · Political science · Public economics · Public relations · Sociology · Computer Science · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies
From investment to net benefits
Kicked cans and poison pills
Do Opportunity Costs of Regulations Appropriately Benefit or Inappropriately Burden Disadvantaged Consumers
Economic Efficiency-Based Benefit–Cost Analysis
Anticipatory policy design for robots in public spaces
Cost–benefit analysis and ‘next best’ methods to evaluate the efficiency of social policies
The European Union in the World Community
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Social Indifference Curves
What’s in, what’s out? Towards a rigorous definition of the boundaries of benefit-cost analysis
The Rights of Refugees under International Law
A Partial Review of Seven Official Guidelines for Cost-Benefit Analysis
Efficiency without Apology
Contingent Valuation and the Policymaking Process
The domain of constitutional economics
What We Know (and Could Know) About International Environmental Agreements
The Legitimacy of International Law
Utility maximization and melioration
Assessing Preferences in Cost-Benefit Analysis
Is cost-benefit analysis legal? Three rules
Reply to Whittington and MacRae
The issue of standing in cost‐benefit analysis
Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of the Job Corps
Who Has Standing in Cost-Benefit Analysis
J. M. Buchanan’s contractarian constitutionalism
Should moral sentiments be incorporated into benefit-cost analysis? An example of long-term discounting
Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking
When Are Nudges Desirable? Benefit Validity When Preferences Are Not Consistently Revealed
| Obras citantes distintas | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 3 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Velocidade de citação | recent |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 6 |