The Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis as a Guide to Priority-Setting in Rehabilitation

John H. Noble
Additional contact information
John H. Noble: Brookings Institution

Evaluation Review, 1977, vol. 1, issue 3, 347-380

Abstract: Policy makers and program managers concerned with targeting resources to meet the rehabilitation needs of the nation cannot rely on the backlog of 18 cost-benefit studies to decide among alternative kinds and amounts of investment. Overly simplistic forecasting of the future earnings of rehabilitants, the insufficiencies of data concerning the benefits and costs of rehabilitation, and the extreme sensitivity of the cost-benefit model's results to its untested underlying assumptions argue against priority-setting based on intuitively appealing class-specific calculations that appear to show greater rates of return for investments in some kinds of disabled persons over others. Until substantial upgrading of the state of the art along certain recommended lines takes place, the political process looks like the only sensible and fair way to approach choice and the assertion ofpriorities.

Date: 1977
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X7700100301 (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:evarev:v:1:y:1977:i:3:p:347-380

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X7700100301

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().