An Aggregate Measure for Benefit–Cost Analysis

Richard O. Zerbe, Yoram Bauman and Aaron Finkle

A chapter in Research in Law and Economics, 2007, pp 223-245 from Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Abstract: The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analyses, but it has also been widely criticized as ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest the use of an aggregate measure (KHM) instead of KH, where M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that all goods for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as economic goods. This addition, however, runs up against objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.101 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.101 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

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:eme:rlwezz:s0193-5895(07)23010-6

DOI: 10.1016/S0193-5895(07)23010-6

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Research in Law and Economics from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().