scholarly journals Erratum to: Impact Evaluation of Forest Conservation Programs: Benefit-Cost Analysis, Without the Economics

2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-409
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Vincent
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
Forest Conservation ◽  
Conservation Programs ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Global Health

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa A. Robinson ◽  
James K. Hammitt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

What’s in, what’s out? Towards a rigorous definition of the boundaries of benefit-cost analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Daniel Acland
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Consumer Sovereignty ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Rigorous Definition ◽  
Pareto Criterion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is typically defined as an implementation of the potential Pareto criterion, which requires inclusion of any impact for which individuals have willingness to pay (WTP). This definition is incompatible with the exclusion of impacts such as rights and distributional concerns, for which individuals do have WTP. I propose a new definition: BCA should include only impacts for which consumer sovereignty should govern. This is because WTP implicitly preserves consumer sovereignty, and is thus only appropriate for ‘sovereignty-warranting’ impacts. I compare the high cost of including non-sovereignty-warranting impacts to the relatively low cost of excluding sovereignty-warranting impacts.

Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Examples from Rwanda and Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Moss ◽  
Andrew Schmitz
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Systematic Variation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Small Producer ◽  
Agricultural Research And Development ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract The question of how to allocate scarce agricultural research and development dollars is significant for developing countries. Historically, benefit/cost analysis has been the standard for comparing the relative benefits of alternative investments. We examine the potential of shifting the implicit equal weights approach to benefit/cost analysis, as well as how a systematic variation in welfare weights may affect different groups important to policy makers. For example, in the case of Rwandan coffee, a shift in the welfare weights that would favor small coffee producers in Rwanda over foreign consumers of Rwandan coffee would increase the support for investments in small producer coffee projects. Generally, changes in welfare weights alter the ordering for selecting investments across alternative projects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document