IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v15y2024is1p206-223_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Budolfson, Mark
  • Espinosa, Romain
  • Fischer, Bob
  • Treich, Nicolas

Abstract

Animal welfare is often ignored in decision-making, despite widespread agreement about its importance. This is partly because of a lack of quantitative methods to assess the impacts of policies on humans and nonhumans alike on a common scale. At the same time, recent work in economics, philosophy, and animal welfare science has made progress on the fundamental theoretical challenge of estimating the well-being potential of different species on a single scale. By combining these estimates of each species’ well-being potential with assessments of how various policies impact the quality of life for these species, along with the number of animals affected, we can arrive at a framework for estimating the impact of policies on animal health and well-being. This framework allows for a quantifiable comparison between policies affecting humans and animals. For instance, it enables us to compare human QALYs to animal QALYs tailored to specific species. Hence, the intrinsic value of animal welfare impacts of policies can be monetized on the same scale as market and non-market impact for humans, facilitating benefit–cost analysis. Many challenges remain though, including issues of population ethics, political feasibility, and new complexities in addressing equity and uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Budolfson, Mark & Espinosa, Romain & Fischer, Bob & Treich, Nicolas, 2024. "Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(S1), pages 206-223, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:15:y:2024:i:s1:p:206-223_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588824000198/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:15:y:2024:i:s1:p:206-223_10. 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.