IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v11y2020i2p319-340_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Consent Justification for Benefit–Cost Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zerbe, Richard O.

Abstract

This paper provides a Consent Justification for benefit–cost analysis (BCA). The Consent Justification is based on a tendency toward actual compensation. A substantial justification for using BCA as a tool is the actual Pareto test, called the Consent Justification, in combination with the net present value criterion for individual projects. The traditional justification, the potential compensation test (PCT), is unsatisfactory on several grounds. In addition, the PCT occupies the uneasy position of being the source of extended criticisms in the economic literature and especially in the legal and philosophy literature. The argument for the Consent Justification lies not only in the deficiencies of the PCT, but also, especially, in a showing through simulation that all tend to gain across a portfolio of projects which is not large but rather robust with respect to errors and assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Zerbe, Richard O., 2020. "The Consent Justification for Benefit–Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 319-340, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:319-340_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588820000093/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. Zerbe, Richard, 2023. "A foundation for benefit-cost analysis," MPRA Paper 121294, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2024.

    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:jbcoan:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:319-340_8. 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/bca .

    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.