Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-03T04:21:47.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scitovsky Reversals and Practical Benefit-Cost Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Richard E. Just ,
Andrew Schmitz  and
Richard O. Zerbe
Richard E. Just
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Andrew Schmitz
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Richard O. Zerbe
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Seattle
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The possibility of preference reversals according to the Kaldor-Hicks (KH) criterion in benefit-cost analysis has concerned economists since Scitovsky (1941) first published his results. Lawyers and philosophers have argued that the potential of reversals calls the use of benefit-cost analysis into question, implying elimination of its use. We demonstrate that reversals occur only with inferior goods in the case of static production possibilities and that reversals occur under changing production possibilities only when production possibilities frontiers cross, which is a myopic characterization that ignores practical cases of global production possibilities.

Keywords

Scitovskyinferior goodscrossing production possibility frontiersbenefit-cost analysis
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , 08 May 2012 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2012

References

Adler, M.D., and Posner, E.A.. 1999. Rethinking cost-benefit analysis. Yale Law Journal 109 (2): 165–247.Google Scholar
Blackorby, C., and Donaldson, D.. 1990. A review article: The case against the use of the sum of compensating variations in cost-benefit analysis. The Canadian Journal of Economics. Revue Canadienne D’économique 23 (3): 471.Google Scholar
Coate, S. 2000. An efficiency approach to the evaluation of policy changes. Economic Journal 110 (463): 437–455.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. 1980. Efficiency, utility and wealth maximization. Hofstra Law Review 8 (3): 509–551.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1940. The valuation of social income. Economica 7 (26): 105–124.Google Scholar
Just, R.E., Hueth, D.L., and Schmitz, A.. 2004. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. 1939. Welfare propositions and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal 49 (145): 549–552.Google Scholar
Markovits, R.S. 1993. A constructive critique of the traditional definition and use of the concept of the effect of choice on allocative (economic) efficiency: Why the Kaldor Hicks Test, the Coase theorem, and virtually all law and economics welfare arguments are wrong. University of Illinois Law Review 485: 512–515.Google Scholar
Markovits, R.S. 2008. Truth or Economics: On the Definition, Prediction, and Relevance of Economic Efficiency. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishan, E. 1981. Introduction to Normative Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A., and Zerbe, R.O. Jr. 2008. Scitovsky reversals and efficiency criteria in policy analysis. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 6 (2): Article 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scitovsky, T. 1941. A note on welfare propositions in economics. Review of Economic Studies 9: 77–88.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R., and Bellas, A.. 2006. A Primer for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R.O., and MuCurdy, H.E.. 1999. The failure of market failure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (4): 558–578.Google Scholar