The Right Numeraire or the Just Weights? How to Make BCA Rational and Fair

Marc Fleurbaey () and James Hammitt
Additional contact information
Marc Fleurbaey: PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Unweighted benefit–cost analysis (BCA) based on aggregate willingness to pay might be, at long last, falling into disrepute, as it is widely recognized that it exhibits a bias toward the wealthy, and as alternatives are appearing more and more practicable. However, the choice of alternatives is often framed in terms of choosing an alternative metric to willingness to pay in money, such as willingness to pay in healthy life years, or a measure of subjective well-being. It is argued in this paper that (i) a simple summation of individuals' willingness to pay in any numeraire (e.g., money, healthy life years) is bound to generate non-transitivity issues in a similar way as money-based BCA, and (ii) a metric such as subjective well-being involves distributional value judgments that are too specific to reflect the relevant spectrum in the public debate. The "orthodox" weighted BCA method, which links BCA to an underlying social welfare function, offers more flexibility and guarantees transitive choices. Fortunately, in some relevant cases, these various methods may provide similar results, and the main options currently proposed all give greater weight to the worse off in the population than does unweighted BCA.

Keywords: Equity weights; Life years; Numeraire; Social welfare function; Subjective well-being (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, In press, ⟨10.1017/bca.2024.1⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Journal Article: The Right Numeraire or the Just Weights? How to Make BCA Rational and Fair (2024)
Working Paper: The Right Numeraire or the Just Weights? How to Make BCA Rational and Fair (2024)
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:hal:journl:halshs-04807353

DOI: 10.1017/bca.2024.1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().