Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-mhx7p Total loading time: 0.492 Render date: 2022-05-20T22:57:24.523Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Lisa A. Robinson
Affiliation:
Independent Consultant
James K. Hammitt
Affiliation:
Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2011

References

Adler, M.A. 2008. “Risk Equity; A New Proposal.” Harvard Environmental Law Review. 32, 1-47.Google Scholar
Adler, M.A. and Posner, E.A.. 2006. New Foundations for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., and Simon, N.. 2004. “Does the Value of a Statistical Life Vary with Age and Health Status? Evidence from the U.S. and Canada.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 48(1), 769-792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allcott, H. and Mullainathan, S.. 2010. “Behavior and Energy Policy.” Science. 327, 1204-1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W.T., and Vesterlund, L.. 2008. “Altruism in Experiments.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. (Second Edition). (Durlauf, S.N. and Blume, L.E., eds.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T.C. 2006. “Benefit-Cost in a Benevolent Society.” American Economic Review. 96(1), 339-351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B.D. and Rangel, A.. 2007. “Behavioral Public Economics: Welfare and Policy Analysis with Non-Standard Decision-Makers.” In Economic Institutions and Behavioral Economics (Diamond, P. and Vartiainen, H., eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B.D. and Rangel, A.. 2009. “Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 124(1), 51-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, G.S., Laibson, D., and Loewenstein, G.. 2007. “Intertemporal Choice – Toward an Integrative Framework.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 11(11), 482-488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beshears, J., Choi, J.J., Laibson, D., and Madrian, B.C.. 2008. “How Are Preferences Revealed?Journal of Public Economics. 92(8-9), 1787-1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braga, J. and Starmer, C.. 2005. “Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation, and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 55-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C.F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (eds.). 2004. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F. 2010. “Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?Environment and Resource Economics. 46(2), 167-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabris, C.F., Laibson, D.I., and Schuldt, J.P.. 2008. “Intertemporal Choice.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (Second Edition). (Durlauf, S.N. and Blume, L.E., eds.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2002. “Understanding Preferences with Simple Tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 117(3), 817-869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congdon, W.J., Kling, J.R., and Mullainathan, S.. 2011. Policy and Choice: Public Finance through the Lens of Behavioral Economics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Corso, P.S., Hammitt, J.K., and Graham, J.D.. 2001. “Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 23(2), 165-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, S. 2009. “Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field.” Journal of Economic Literature. 47(2), 315-372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desaigues, B., Rabl, A., Ami, D., Kene, B.M., Masson, S., Salomon, M-A and Santoni, L.. 2007. “Monetary Value of a Life Expectancy Gain due to Reduced Air Pollution: Lessons from a Contingent Valuation.” Revue d’Economie Politique. 117(5), 675-698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P. and Vartiainen, H. (eds). 2007. Behavioral Economics and Its Applications. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dockins, C., Jenkins, R.R., Owens, N., Simon, N.B., and Wiggins, L.B.. 2002. “Valuation of Childhood Risk Reduction: The Importance of Age, Risk Preferences and Perspective.” Risk Analysis. 22(2), 335-346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dockins, C., Maguire, K., Simon, N., and Sullivan, M.. 2004. Value of Statistical Life Analysis and Environmental Policy: A White Paper. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for presentation to the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. 1961. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 75(4), 643-669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrow, S. 2011. “Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Risk-Based Preferences.” Risk Analysis. forthcoming.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M.. 1999. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114(3), 817868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R.H. 2005. “Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses.” American Economic Review. 95(2), 137-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R.. 2001. “Cost-Benefit Analysis and Relative Position.” University of Chicago Law Review. 68(2), 323-374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., and O’Donoghue, T.. 2002. “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Literature. 40(2), 351-401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A.M. III. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Second Edition). Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. 2006. “Advancing beyond Advances In Behavioral Economics .” Journal of Economic Literature. 44(3), 694-711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D.K.. 2006. “A Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control.” American Economic Review. 96(5), 1449-1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., and Weinstein, M.C. (eds.). 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gollier, C. and Zeckhauser, R.. 2005. “Aggregation of Heterogeneous Time Preferences.” Journal of Political Economy. 113(4), 878-896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J.D. 2008. “Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 157, 395-540.Google Scholar
Green, J.R. and Hojman, D.A.. 2009. Choice, Rationality, and Welfare Measurement. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Guria, J., Leung, J., Jones-Lee, M., and Loomes, G.. 2005. “The Willingness to Accept Value of Statistical Life Relative to the Willingness to Pay Value: Evidence and Policy Implications.” Environmental & Resource Economics. 32(1), 113127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. 2000. “Valuing Mortality Risk: Theory and Practice.” Environmental Science and Technology. 34(8), 1396-1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. 2007. “Valuing Changes in Mortality Risk: Lives Saved versus Life Years Saved.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 1(2), 228-240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. 2009. “Response: Saving Lives: Benefit-Cost Analysis and Distribution .” University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra. 157, 189-199.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. and Graham, J.D.. 1999. “Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 18(1), 33-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. and Robinson, L.A.. 2011. “The Income Elasticity of the Value per Statistical Life: Transferring Estimates Between High and Low Income Populations.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 2(1): Art. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J.K. and Treich, N.. 2007. “Statistical vs. Identified Lives in Benefit-Cost Analysis,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 35(1), 45-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. 1991. “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?American Economic Review. 81(3), 635-647.Google Scholar
Hanley, N. and Shogren, J.F.. 2005. “Is Benefit-Cost Analysis Anomaly-Proof?Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 13-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morgenstern, R.D.. 2009. Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Harvey, C.M. 1994. “The Reasonableness of Non-Constant Discounting.” Journal of Public Economics 53(1), 31-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, C., Duncan, S., and Papachristodoulou, A.. 2010. “Behavioural Economics, Hyperbolic Discounting, and Environmental Policy.” Environment and Resource Economics. 46(2), 189-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury. 2003. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: TSO.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J.K. and McConnell, K.E.. 2002. “A Review of WTA/WTP Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 44(3), 426-447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine. 2006. Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. (Miller, W., Robinson, L.A., and Lawrence, R.S., eds.). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, F., Johannesson, M., and Borgquist, L.. 2007. “Is Altruism Paternalistic?The Economic Journal. 117(520), 761-781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O. 2008. “Mad Cows, Terrorism and Junk Food: Should Public Policy Reflect Perceived or Objective Risks?Journal of Health Economics. 27(2), 234-248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson-Stenman, O. and Konow, J.. 2010. “Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental Economics.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 46(2), 147-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Lee, M.W. 1991. “Altruism and the Value of Other People’s Safety.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 4(2), 213-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E., Hueth, D.L., and Schmitz, A.. 2004. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2000a. “Experienced Utility and Objective Happiness: A Moment-Based Approach.” In Choices, Values, and Frames (Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2000b. “Evaluation by Moments: Past and Future.” In Choices, Values, and Frames (Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H.. 1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5(1), 192-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J.L.. 1992. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 22(1), 57-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Sugden, R.. 2005. “Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 161-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica. 47(2), 263-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (eds.). 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J.L. 2005. “Gains, Losses, and the US-EPA Economic Analysis Guidelines: A Hazardous Product?Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 91-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J.L. 2010. “Values of Gains and Losses: Reference States and Choices of Measure.” Environment and Resource Economics. 46(2), 179-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniesner, T.J. and Viscusi, W.K.. 2005. “Value of a Statistical Life: Relative Position vs. Relative Age.” American Economic Review. 95(2), 142-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutilla, J. 1967. “Conservation Reconsidered.” American Economic Review. 57(4), 777-786.Google Scholar
Laibson, D.I. 1997. “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112(2), 443-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laibson, D.I. 2010. “Behavioral Economics.” Presented at American Economic Association Annual Meeting, Continuing Education Program.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laibson, D.I., Repetto, A., and Tobacman, J.. 2007. Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2010. “Measuring Subjective Well-Being.” Science. 327(5965), 534-535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., and Braathen, N.A.. 2010. Valuing Lives Saved from Environmental, Transport, and Health Policies: A Meta-Analysis of Stated Preference Studies. Prepared for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2008)10/FINAL.Google Scholar
List, J.A. 2005. “Scientific Numerology, Preference Anomalies, and Environmental Policymaking.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 35-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B. 2011. Incorporating Distributional Issues into Benefit Cost Analysis: Why, How, and Two Empirical Examples Using Non-market Valuation. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. 2(1), Art. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttmer. 2005. “Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 120(3), 963-1002.Google Scholar
Manski, C.F. 2009. “Actualist Rationality.” Theory and Decision. forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T.. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Morris, J. and Hammitt, J.K.. 2001. “Using Life Expectancy to Communicate Benefits of Health Care Programs in Contingent Valuation Studies.” Medical Decision Making. 21(6), 468-478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, A. 2009. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Things We Do and Don’t Understand about the Household and the Environment.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 43(1), 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. “Natural Resource Damage Assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.” Federal Register. 58(10), 4601-4614.Google Scholar
Pratt, J.W. and Zeckhauser, R.J.. 1996. “Willingness to Pay and the Distribution of Risk and Wealth. Journal of Political Economy. 104(4), 747-763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M. 1998. “Psychology and Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature. 36(1), 11-46.Google Scholar
Read, D. 2001. “Is Time-Discounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive?Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 23(1), 5-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddel, M. and Shaw, W.D.. 2006. “A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Model of Non-Expected Utility: An Application to Nuclear-Waste Transport.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 32(2), 131-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, L.A. 2004. Current Federal Agency Practices for Valuing the Impact of Regulations on Human Health and Safety. Prepared for the Committee to Evaluate Measures of Health Benefits for Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation, Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar
Robinson, L.A. 2008a. “Assessing Regulatory Costs and Benefits.” Prepared for: Nriagu, J. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Environmental Health (forthcoming). Oxford UK: Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
Robinson, L.A. 2008b. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Homeland Security Regulatory Analyses. Prepared for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, under subcontract to Industrial Economics, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Robinson, L.A. and Hammitt, J.K.. 2009. The Value of Reducing Air Pollution Risks in Sub-Saharan Africa. Prepared for the World Bank under subcontract to ICF International.Google Scholar
Robinson, L.A., Hammitt, J.K., Aldy, J.E., Krupnick, A., and Baxter, J.. 2010. “Valuing the Risk of Death from Terrorist Attacks.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 7(1), Art. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, S. 1988. “The Value of Changes in Life Expectancy,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 285-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 2003. “‘Economics and Psychology’? The Case of Hyperbolic Discounting.” International Economic Review. 44(4), 1027-1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1937. “A Note on the Measurement of Utility.” Review of Economic Studies. 4(2), 155-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, D.S., and Zeckhauser, R.J.. 1984. “Survival versus Consumption,” Management Science 30(4), 423-439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J.F. 2005. “Economics of Diet and Health: Research Challenges.” Acta Agriculturae Scand Section C. 2(3-4), 117-127.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Parkhurst, G.M., and Banerjee, P.. 2010. “Two Cheers and a Qualm for Behavioral Environmental Economics.” Environment and Resource Economics. 46(2), 235-247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. 1987. “Perception of Risk.” Science. 236(4799), 280-285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, V.K. 2007. “Reflections on the Literature.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 1(1), 152-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.K. 2008. “Reflections on the Literature.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2(2), 292-308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.K. and Moore, E.M.. 2010. “Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis.” Environment and Resource Economics. 46(2), 217-234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.K., Pattanayak, S.K., and Van Houtven, G. L.. 2006. “Structural Benefit Transfer: An Application Using VSL Estimates.” Ecological Economics. 60(2), 361-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solnick, S.J. and Hemenway, D., 2005. “Are Positional Concerns Stronger in Some Domains than in Others?American Economic Review. 95(2), 147-151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 2004. “The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences.” American Economic Review. 94(4), 1014-1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 2005a. “Coping with Preference Anomalies in Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Market Simulation Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 129-160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 2005b. “Anomalies and Stated Preference Techniques: A Framework for Discussion of Coping Strategies.” Environmental and Resource Economics. 32(1), 1-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 2009. “Market Simulation and the Provision of Public Goods: A NonPaternalistic Response to Anomalies in Environmental Evaluation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 57(1), 87-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 2000. “Cognition and Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2), 1059-1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. 2007. “Willingness to Pay vs. Welfare.” Harvard Law and Policy Review, 1, 303-330.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. 1992. The Winner’s Curse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. and Mullainathan, S.. 2008. “How Behavioral Economics Differs from Traditional Economics.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R.. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper (Review Draft). Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Economics for consultation with the Science Advisory Board–Environmental Economics Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis. EPA 240-R-10-001.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1992. Circular A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W.K. and Aldy, J.E.. 2003. “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 27(1), 5-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W.K., Magat, W.A., and Forrest, A.. 1988. “Altruistic and Private Valuations of Risk Reduction.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 7(2), 227-245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W.K., Magat, W.A., and Huber, J.. 1991. “Communication of Ambiguous Risk Information.” Theory and Decision. 31(2-3), 159-173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M.L. 2001. “Gamma Discounting.” The American Economic Review. 91(1), 260-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willig, R.D. 1976. “Consumer’s Surplus without Apology.” The American Economic Review. 66(4), 589-597.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R. 2009. “Ethical Benefit Cost Analysis as Art and Science: Ten Rules for Benefit-Cost Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change. 12(1), 73-105.Google Scholar
You have Access
36
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *