IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v2y1997i02p195-221_25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit-cost analysis, environment, and health in the developed and developing world

Author

Listed:
  • PEARCE, DAVID W.

Abstract

Arrow et al. revisit the case for using benefit-cost analysis in a developed country, the USA, where markets work reasonably efficiently and where the capacity to implement such studies is undoubted. Their recommendations deserve wholehearted support in that context, particularly their recommendation 1 calling for a comparison of gains and losses from regulatory actions. Those who have not worked in government will recognise that most decisions are not in fact made with any form of calculus that we might describe as 'cost benefit thinking'. Indeed, the whole process of policy priority setting is all too often ad hoc, reactive, crisis-based and over-responsive to often ill-informed pressure groups (of all kinds).

Suggested Citation

  • Pearce, David W., 1997. "Benefit-cost analysis, environment, and health in the developed and developing world," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 195-221, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:2:y:1997:i:02:p:195-221_25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X97250163/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. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    2. Bromley, Daniel W., 2007. "Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond "market failure"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 676-683, September.
    3. Joseph H. Cook, 2013. "Principles and standards for benefit–cost analysis of public health preparedness and pandemic mitigation programs," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 3, pages 110-152, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:endeec:v:2:y:1997:i:02:p:195-221_25. 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/ede .

    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.