IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jespps/jes-06-2019-0269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the impossibility of using “the correct” cost–benefit aggregation rule

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Munda
  • Agata Matarazzo

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to deal with one of the technical difficulties of private and social cost–benefit analysis, i.e. the choice of the proper cost–benefit aggregation rule (or method) to use, when a private capital investment decision has to be taken or a public project appraisal has to be carried out. Design/methodology/approach - Although the considerable amount of existing literature, the problem of the choice of the right mathematical aggregation rule is still an open one. The majority of authors claim that net present value is a superior method and thus it is the one to be always used. Other authors try to show that various aggregation methods, under specific conditions, arrive at the same recommendation. An exceptional case is the field of education economics where the internal rate of return is widely used. Findings - This paper offers a survey of this controversial topic which focuses on some clear cut formal properties of the various aggregation methods and considers the empirical characteristics of the different fields of application. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist. Originality/value - Its main objective is to supply clear guidelines to orient practitioners and help the teaching on this topic. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist. On the contrary, even if one restricts her/himself to a particular class of investments, often no clear-cut selection can be made.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Munda & Agata Matarazzo, 2020. "On the impossibility of using “the correct” cost–benefit aggregation rule," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 47(5), pages 1119-1136, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jespps:jes-06-2019-0269
    DOI: 10.1108/JES-06-2019-0269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JES-06-2019-0269/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JES-06-2019-0269/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JES-06-2019-0269?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ex-ante impact assessment; Cost-benefit analysis; Environmental capital; Human capital; Life cycle cost analysis; Net present value; Benefit-cost ratio; Internal rate of return; Payback; Multiple criteria evaluation; G11; H43; I26; O22; Q01;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I26 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Returns to Education
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    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:eme:jespps:jes-06-2019-0269. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.