Response: The Use of Economic Analysis in Public Policy

Wim Wiewel

Economic Development Quarterly, 1995, vol. 9, issue 4, 324-326

Abstract: Morales and colleagues deserve credit for extending traditional economic analysis by using anthropological field data and applying midlevel economic tools to policy analysis. However, their analysis is problematic because it exaggerates how many benefits would be lost if the Maxwell Street Market were moved, ignores the costs imposed by the market, and does not consider the economic benefits of the university's proposed land use. Even very moderate success of the university's plans will more than compensate for the economic losses caused by the market's move. It was politically impossible for the university to implement its expansion plans while maintaining the market. Such difficult choices inevitably arise in a complex urban environment. Cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool, but provides only some of the information that enters into the decision-making process. Thus analysts must be modest in the claims they make for the policy relevance of their data.

Date: 1995
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124249500900404 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:9:y:1995:i:4:p:324-326

DOI: 10.1177/089124249500900404

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economic Development Quarterly
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().