Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 42
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Baard, Patrik 2016. Risk-reducing goals: ideals and abilities when managing complex environmental risks. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 19, Issue. 2, p. 164.

    Feuillette, Sarah Levrel, Harold Boeuf, Blandine Blanquart, Stéphanie Gorin, Olivier Monaco, Guillaume Penisson, Bruno and Robichon, Stéphane 2016. The use of cost–benefit analysis in environmental policies: Some issues raised by the Water Framework Directive implementation in France. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 57, p. 79.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. Five caveats for risk–risk analysis. Journal of Risk Research, p. 1.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. The Ethics of Doing Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics,

    Hansson, Sven Ove and Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude 2016. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis.

    Hansson, Sven Ove Lilieqvist, Kristin Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson and Johansson, Maria Vredin 2016. Time horizons and discount rates in Swedish environmental policy: Who decides and on what grounds?. Futures, Vol. 76, p. 55.

    Hwang, Kwangseon 2016. Cost-benefit analysis: its usage and critiques. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 75.

    Storm, Servaas 2016. How the Invisible Hand is Supposed to Adjust the Natural Thermostat: A Guide for the Perplexed. Science and Engineering Ethics,

    Gibbs, Mark T. 2015. Pitfalls in developing coastal climate adaptation responses. Climate Risk Management, Vol. 8, p. 1.

    Hall, Murray R. 2015. A transdisciplinary review of the role of economics in life cycle sustainability assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 20, Issue. 12, p. 1625.

    Mora, Miguel G. Valcárcel, Jairo A. Cardona, Omar D. Pujades, Lluis G. Barbat, Alex H. and Bernal, Gabriel A. 2015. Prioritizing Interventions to Reduce Seismic Vulnerability in School Facilities in Colombia. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 31, Issue. 4, p. 2535.

    Tappura, S. Sievänen, M. Heikkilä, J. Jussila, A. and Nenonen, N. 2015. A management accounting perspective on safety. Safety Science, Vol. 71, p. 151.

    Börjesson, Maria Jonsson, R. Daniel Berglund, Svante and Almström, Peter 2014. Land-use impacts in transport appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 47, p. 82.

    Doorn, N. 2014. Rationality in flood risk management: the limitations of probabilistic risk assessment in the design and selection of flood protection strategies. Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 230.

    Ferreira, Joaquim Pinheiro, Manuel Duarte and de Brito, Jorge 2014. Portuguese sustainable construction assessment tools benchmarked with BREEAM and LEED: An energy analysis. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 69, p. 451.

    Finnveden, Göran and Åkerman, Jonas 2014. Not planning a sustainable transport system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 46, p. 53.

    Gilead, Tal 2014. Education and the Rationale of Cost–Benefit Analysis. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 62, Issue. 4, p. 373.

    Hansson, Sven Ove and Aven, Terje 2014. Is Risk Analysis Scientific?. Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, Issue. 7, p. 1173.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2013. Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management.



  • DOI:
  • Published online: 31 July 2007

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is much more philosophically interesting than has in general been recognized. Since it is the only well-developed form of applied consequentialism, it is a testing-ground for consequentialism and for the counterfactual analysis that it requires. Ten classes of philosophical problems that affect the practical performance of cost–benefit analysis are investigated: topic selection, dependence on the decision perspective, dangers of super synopticism and undue centralization, prediction problems, the indeterminateness of our control over future decisions, the need to exclude certain consequences for moral reasons, bias in the delimitation of consequences, incommensurability of consequences, difficulties in defending the essential requirement of transferability across contexts, and the normatively questionable but equally essential assumption of interpersonal compensability.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *