IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v23y2007i02p163-183_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • HANSSON, SVEN OVE

Abstract

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is much more philosophically interesting than has in general been recognized. Since it is the only well-developed form of applied consequentialism, it is a testing-ground for consequentialism and for the counterfactual analysis that it requires. Ten classes of philosophical problems that affect the practical performance of cost–benefit analysis are investigated: topic selection, dependence on the decision perspective, dangers of super synopticism and undue centralization, prediction problems, the indeterminateness of our control over future decisions, the need to exclude certain consequences for moral reasons, bias in the delimitation of consequences, incommensurability of consequences, difficulties in defending the essential requirement of transferability across contexts, and the normatively questionable but equally essential assumption of interpersonal compensability.

Suggested Citation

  • Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:23:y:2007:i:02:p:163-183_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267107001356/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sven Hansson, 2007. "Social decisions about risk and risk-taking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(4), pages 649-663, December.
    2. Dimitriou, Harry T. & Ward, E. John & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    4. Helen LaVan & Lori S. Cook & Ivana Zilic, 2021. "An analysis of the ethical frameworks and financial outcomes of corporate social responsibility and business press reporting of US pharmaceutical companies," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(3), pages 326-355.
    5. Rafał Buła & Monika Foltyn-Zarychta, 2022. "Declining Discount Rates for Energy Policy Investments in CEE EU Member Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    7. Kinouchi, Renato, 2018. "Philosophical issues related to risks and values," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Börjesson, Maria & Jonsson, R. Daniel & Berglund, Svante & Almström, Peter, 2014. "Land-use impacts in transport appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 82-91.
    9. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281.
    10. Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson, 2012. "Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(3), pages 258-279, August.
    11. Stephen John, 2015. "Efficiency, responsibility and disability," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    12. Andrea Klonschinski, 2021. "Universal Metrics for Climate Change Adaptation Finance? A Cautionary Tale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2010. "Technology and the notion of sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 274-279.
    14. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:23:y:2007:i:02:p:163-183_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.