Towards a fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all valuation languages: Comment on Kallis et al. (2013)
Ivana Logar and
Jeroen van den Bergh
Ecological Economics, 2015, vol. 112, issue C, 164-169
We provide critical notes to the paper by Kallis et al. (2013) on monetary valuation. We evaluate the four criteria they propose for assessing valuation studies. We argue that no clear distinction is made between monetary valuation and pricing instruments. The selected criteria are more relevant to assessing policy than monetary valuation. The examples provided are not representative of the diversity of valuation studies encountered in the literature. Moreover, no clear examples are provided of where valuation and associated cost–benefit analysis of environmental policy go wrong. We plea for a more fair, constructive and consistent criticism of all “valuation languages” and offer relevant issues for consideration.
Keywords: Commodification; Cost–benefit analysis; Environmental policy; Evaluation criteria; Monetary valuation; Valuation languages (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:112:y:2015:i:c:p:164-169
Access Statistics for this article
Ecological Economics is currently edited by C. J. Cleveland
More articles in Ecological Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().