On non-marginal cost-benefit analysis

Simon Dietz and Cameron Hepburn ()

No 18, GRI Working Papers from Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

Abstract: Conventional benefit-cost analysis incorporates the normally reasonable assumption that the policy or project under examination is marginal. In particular, it is assumed that the policy or project does not change the underlying growth rate of the economy. However, this assumption may be inappropriate in some important circumstances, notably responding to climate change. One example is the benefit-cost analysis of global targets for carbon emissions, while another might be a large renewable energy project in a small economy, such as a hydropower dam. This paper develops some theory on the evaluation of non-marginal policies and projects, with simple empirical applications to climate change. We examine the conditions under which evaluation of a non-marginal project using marginal methods may be wrong, and in our empirical examples we show that both qualitative and large quantitative errors are plausible.

Date: 2010-03
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/ ... 2/Workingpaper18.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: On non-marginal cost-benefit analysis (2010)
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:lsg:lsgwps:wp18

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in GRI Working Papers from Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by The GRI Administration ().