Benefit–cost analysis as a mechanism for evaluating conservation policies in developing countries

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
PRIYA SHYAMSUNDAR
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Conservation Policies ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
The Tropics

Can benefit-cost analysis (BCA) be used in the developing world in the same way in which it is used in developed market economies? The paper by Arrow et al. makes a good case for employing BCA to evaluate environmental, health, and safety regulations in the United States. It offers a number of principles to guide the use of benefit-cost analyses, some of which can be applied to developing countries. Conservation policies in the tropics can help illustrate the relevance of BCA for evaluating regulations in less industrialized countries. I use a set of studies on the Mantadia National Park to show in practical terms how and when BCA can serve as an effective evaluative tool.

Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?

Science ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 272 (5259) ◽  
pp. 221-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. J. Arrow ◽  
M. L. Cropper ◽  
G. C. Eads ◽  
R. W. Hahn ◽  
L. B. Lave ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH J. ARROW ◽  
MAUREEN L. CROPPER ◽  
GEORGE C. EADS ◽  
ROBERT W. HAHN ◽  
LESTER B. LAVE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Regulatory Process ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Specific Approach ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

The growing impact of regulations on the economy has led both Congress and the Administration to search for new ways of reforming the regulatory process. Many of these initiatives call for greater reliance on the use of economic analysis in the development and evaluation of regulations. One specific approach being advocated is benefit-cost analysis, an economic tool for comparing the desirable and undesirable impacts of proposed policies.

Introduction: benefit-cost analysis and the environment in developing countries

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-221
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Project Appraisal ◽  
The Us ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Benefit Cost

In one sense, everyone making a decision of any consequence uses something very like benefit-cost analysis. That is, they weigh up the pros and cons of the options confronting them and decide between them accordingly. Benefit-cost analysis is merely one systematic way of evaluating the economically relevant pros and cons of various options. The authors of the project appraisal manuals of the early 1970s (Mishan, 1971; Dasgupta et al., 1972; Pearce, 1972; Little and Mirrlees, 1974) were interested in establishing a set of rules that might ensure that the results of distinct social investment decisions would be efficient (or at least consistent). On the surface, the paper by Arrow et al. (1996) that is the focus of this forum merely argues for an extension of benefit-cost rules to an area where, as David Pearce points out in his commentary, policy-making tends to be dominated by hasty, ill-conceived, ad hoc responses to the pressures of the moment. The paper argues that environmental, health and safety regulations in the US could and should be informed by an analysis of their economically relevant costs and benefits.

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.

scholarly journals Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Biases Understating Net Benefits

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip E. Graves
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Environmental Policies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Marginal Costs ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Proper Science

There are many reasons to suspect that benefit-cost analysis applied to environmental policies will result in policy decisions that will reject those environmental policies. The important question, of course, is whether those rejections are based on proper science. The present paper explores sources of bias in the methods used to evaluate environmental policy in the United States, although most of the arguments translate immediately to decision-making in other countries. There are some “big picture” considerations that have gone unrecognized, and there are numerous more minor, yet cumulatively important, technical details that point to potentially large biases against acceptance on benefit-cost grounds of environmental policies that have true marginal benefits greater than true marginal costs, both in net present value terms. It is hoped that the issues raised here will improve future conduct of benefit-cost analyses of environmental policies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document