Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Values, preferences, and the citizen-consumer distinction in cost-benefit analysis

Bibliographic Data

ID7354181
AuthorsShepley Orr (University College London, corresponding author), Shepley W Orr (University College London, UK,)
Year2007
Volume6
Issue1
Pages107-130
Publication date2007-01-23
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitics Philosophy & Economics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1470-594X • E-ISSN: 1741-3060
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1470594x07068306
OpenAlexW1982348124
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited2

This article examines criticisms of cost-benefit analysis and the contingent valuation method from methodological and moral philosophical perspectives. Both perspectives argue that what should be elicited for public decisions are attitudes or values, not preferences, and that respondents should be treated as citizens and not consumers. The moral philosophical criticism argues in favour of deliberative approaches over cost-benefit analysis. The methodological perspective is here criticized for overemphasizing the importance of protest responses and anomalies and biases in contingent valuation, and for failing to provide the necessary information needed to make public decisions over the allocation of scarce goods. The moral philosophical perspective is criticized for: failing to provide criteria for distinguishing between values and preferences, assuming impartiality requires expression of values and not preferences; failing to recognize the diversity of forms of expression of values, including expression of values through monetary evaluation; and assuming that cost-benefit analysis is necessarily an implementation of a utilitarian political philosophy. The article concludes by showing that deliberative decision-making mechanisms can be overly demanding on citizens, and argues for greater openness in the potential moral justifications of cost-benefit analysis

Contingent valuation · Cost–benefit analysis · Criticism · Deliberation · Economics · Epistemology · Expression (computer science · Impartiality · Law and economics · Microeconomics · Openness to experience · Perspective (graphical · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Public good · Sociology · Valuation (finance · Willingness to pay · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology

  • Taking Utilitarianism Seriously

    Christopher Woodard•Taking Utilitarianism Seriously•2019

  • The Ethics of Synthetic Biology

    Open Access•Gregory E Kaebnick, Michael K Gusmano et al.•The Hastings Center Report•2014

  • Citizen Preferences and BCA

    Open Access•Morgan Beeson, Susan Chilton et al.•Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis•2024

  • An Ethical Argument in Favor of Nano-enabled Diagnostics in Livestock Disease Control

    Open Access•Johan Evers, Stef Aerts et al.•NanoEthics•2008

  • Valuing Nature

    B A Christensen•Review of Political Economy•2015

  • Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements

    Open Access•Tania Burchardt•Qualitative Research•2014

  • Valuing public goods

    Open Access•Daniel Kahneman, Jack L Knetsch•Journal of Environmental…•1992

  • The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis

    Open Access•Donald C Hubin•Economics and Philosophy•1994

Citations per year0.33
Citation span2008 - 2024 (17)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae