Why Is Cost-Benefit Analysis So Controversial?

Robert Frank ()

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, vol. 29, issue 2, 913-30

Abstract: The cost-benefit principle says we should take those actions, and only those actions, whose benefits exceed their costs. For many, this principle's commonsensical ring makes it hard to imagine how anyone could disagree. Yet critics of cost-benefit analysis are both numerous and outspoken. Many of them argue that cost-benefit analysis is unacceptable as a matter of principle. I begin by noting why many find this argument largely unpersuasive. I then examine several conventions adopted by cost-benefit analysts that do appear to yield misleading prescriptions. Finally, I consider the possibility that the cost-benefit principle may itself suggest why we might not always want to employ cost-benefit analysis as the explicit rationale for our actions. Copyright 2000 by the University of Chicago.

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (15)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/468099 (application/pdf)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

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:ucp:jlstud:v:29:y:2000:i:2:p:913-30

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().