scholarly journals El Espejismo de la Eficiencia Económica

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-169
Author(s):  
Ignacio de León
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Evolutionary Dynamics ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Market Process ◽  
Free Markets ◽  
Market Conduct ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Normative Criterion ◽  
Policy Problems

There is an international growing consensus about the need of promoting economic efficiency as the yardstick of modern economic policymaking, especially in the promotion of market transition in de-veloping countries. This essay objects the supporting premises of such assumption. It exposes why economic efficiency represents a normative criterion for the assignment of social resources which undermines markets’ creative functioning. Given the utopian founding premises within which such social welfare cost-benefit analysis is built, its enforcement cannot be meaningfully applied to judge entrepreneurs’ market conduct. Economic efficiency leaves aside all connection with the creative evolutionary dynamics of markets. Because of this, it diverts the attention of regulatory authorities into policy problems which are irrelevant, even counterproductive, for the promotion of free markets. By applying market process ideas expounded by F.A. Hayek, I. Kirzner and G.B.Richardson, this essay shows that invest-ment promotion, which is the very foundation of economic growth, is linked to entrepreneurs’ seizure of useful information which they need to under-take their investments. This essay shows how competition policies, by grounding their views in a structural and static vision of markets, end up distorting their very policy purpose. Key words: Economic efficiency, public policies. Clasificación JEL: B53, D61, D83, D84 Resumen: Existe un consenso internacional creciente acerca de la nece-sidad de impulsar la eficiencia económica como principio rector de la for-mulación de políticas públicas en el campo económico, especialmente para promover la transición de las economías de países en desarrollo hacia los mercados. Este ensayo objeta las premisas intelectuales que sus-tentan esa creencia, y expone por qué la eficiencia económica representa un criterio normativo de asignación de los recursos sociales que obsta-culiza el proceso creador de los mercados. Dadas las condiciones utó-picas bajo las cuales se construye dicho cálculo de coste-beneficio de bie-nestar social, no es posible su aplicación normativa para juzgar la conducta de los empresarios en los mercados. La eficiencia económica deja de lado todo contacto con la dinámica evolutiva, renovadora y creadora de los mercados. Por ello, distrae la atención del regulador hacia problemas irre-levantes para la promoción del libre mercado. Empleando las ideas de proceso de mercado de F.A. Hayek, I. Kirzner y G.B.Richardson, este ensayo muestra que el desarrollo de inversiones en los mercados, base del crecimiento económico, está ligado a que los empresarios obtengan la información útil que necesitan para hacer inversiones. Se muestra de qué manera las políticas de competencia, al fundarse en una visión epis-temológica estructural y estática de los mercados, terminan por distor-sionar su propia finalidad de políticas públicas. Palabras clave: Eficiencia económica, políticas públicas.

Citizens–experts’ interactions under different institutional arrangements: assessing the role of uncertainty, interests, and values

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 861-879
Author(s):  
Francesco Bogliacino ◽  
Cristiano Codagnone ◽  
Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Value Relevance ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Value Conflicts ◽  
Normative Criterion ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Deliberative Governance

AbstractIn this paper, we develop a framework to analyze the relationship between evidence and policy. Postulating a normative criterion based on cost–benefit analysis and the value of a piece of information, as well as a topology of the policy space defined by three characteristics (epistemic uncertainty, interests, and the degree of value conflicts), we identify the (Nash) equilibria of an interaction between experts and citizens in providing information to a decision maker. In this setup, we study three institutional arrangements (evidence-based policy, deliberative governance, and negotiated conflict) that differ in terms of reliance on experts and citizens for providing information. We show that different degrees of uncertainty, interests, and value-relevance surrounding the issue at stake result in vastly different arrangement performances; hence, to foster efficiency, rules should be contingent.

Economic Efficiency and Cost-Benefit Analysis

2017 ◽  
pp. 81-107
Author(s):  
Sherman Folland ◽  
Allen C. Goodman ◽  
Miron Stano
Keyword(s):  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis

scholarly journals Application of Economic Indicators to Asses the Bridges of Rehablitation

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-75
Author(s):  
Martin Pitoňák ◽  
Milan Valuch
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Regional Development ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Indicators ◽  
Concrete Bridge ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Technology Project

Abstract The aim of this paper is to point out the advantage of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and its economic indicators to assess a rehabilitation of bridges. The paper includes short example of assessment of the project economic efficiency in which economic indicators are applied in order to evaluate of two technology project variants of bridge object rehabilitation. It quantifies and compares the economic results of alternative 1 with the monolithic prestress construction and alternative 2, with the composite steel - concrete bridge. The contribution reflects the current practice of economic analysis recommended by the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development.

scholarly journals Solvency, Indebtedness, Rates of Return and Investment Impact on Economic and Technical Analysis Indicators (Case Study)

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 107-117
Author(s):  
A. Chiran ◽  
Elena Gîndu ◽  
A.F. Jităreanu ◽  
C.R. Vîntu ◽  
Adriana Măgureanu
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Financial Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Balance Sheet ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Technical Analysis ◽  
Technical And Economic Analysis ◽  
Key Indicators ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The purpose of the performed and presented financial analyzes, in the case of the two units, does not allow major discrepancies between the estimated and achieved situation. The authors have based the research on the technical-economic and financial analysis of investments, which sets economic efficiency and investments viability and assumes forecast of revenue, expenses, profit and loss account, balance sheet and cash flow: a) static analysis of indicators; b) dynamic analysis of indicators, c) cost-benefit analysis. Analysis of economic efficiency and sustainability of investments aimes at both static indicators of investment analysis and dynamic analysis of economic efficiency. The goal of research was to improve analyzes and economic indicators for assessing the effectiveness and sustainability of investments and the objectives targeted technical and economic analysis, solvency and viability of investments and the impact of the investment on key indicators of economic and financial technical analysis. Case studies, carried out at S.C. NORD INTERMED CONSULTING GROUP S.R.L. Dorneşti, Suceava county and S.C. ANDIMIR TOP S.R.L. Mihălăşeni, Botoşani county, led to a series of measures to improve the financial analysis of economic efficiency and sustainability of investments.

Morality, Reason, and Management Science: The Rationale of Cost-Benefit Analysis

1985 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Copp
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Policy Maker ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Management Science ◽  
Social Policies ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Selection Of

The ProblemEconomic efficiency is naturally thought to be a virtue of social policies and decisions, and cost-benefit (CB) analysis is commonly regarded as a technique for measuring economic efficiency. It is not surprising, then, that CB analysis is so widely used in social policy analysis. However, there is a great deal of controversy about CB analysis, including controversy about its underlying philosophical rationale. The rationales that have been proposed fall into three basic, though not mutually exclusive categories. There are moralist views to the effect that an acceptable CB analysis would provide, or contribute to, an ethical appraisal of proposed policies or projects. There are rationalist views to the effect that an acceptable CB analysis would contribute to the selection of social policies and projects that are “socially rational.” Finally, there are so-called management science views to the effect that the purpose of CB analysis is to promote the achievement of objectives held by the policy maker, whatever they may be. Different positions are available within each of these categories. But there is also the possibility that CB analysis lacks any viable rationale. I will examine some of the major rationales for CB analysis in this paper, and I will suggest that the last view is close to the truth.

Politics and Regulation

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-34
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Contemporary United States ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
Broad Policy

One of the defining features of politics in the contemporary United States is the central role played by the actions, or inactions, of federal administrative agencies. The complex nature of many policy problems, coupled with the limited ability of Congress to act, has frequently led to statutes that delegate to specialists the task of translating broad policy mandates into fine-tuned regulations. To balance the need for democratic accountability with values such as expertise and impartiality, both political parties have constructed a system of guardrails that cabins political influence over agencies. Some of these guardrails are external and include judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Other guardrails are internal to the executive branch. Among the most important of these internal constraints is the use of cost-benefit analysis to inform regulatory decision making.

Is-it worth investing in NBS aiming at mitigating water risks? Insights from the economic assessment of NAIAD case studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Le Coent ◽  
Cécile Herivaux ◽  
Javier Calatrava ◽  
Roxane Marchal ◽  
David Mouncoulon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Physical Models ◽  
Valuation Methods ◽  
The Cost

<p>The economic advantage of NBS solutions aiming at mitigating water-risk is widely put forward as an argument for their development. There is nevertheless limited scientific evidence to support this argument. This paper therefore elaborates a methodological framework for the economic assessment of NBS and presents its application to three NAIAD case studies (the Lez catchment, France; Rotterdam, the Netherlands and Brague catchment, France). Robust methods are particularly applied for the estimation of the benefits associated with NBS. Physical models coupled with damage estimation models are developed to estimate the avoided damages generated by NBS. A diversity of ecosystem service valuation methods are also applied to evaluate the monetary value of NBS co-benefits: contingent valuation (Brague), choice experiment (Lez) and direct valuation methods (Rotterdam). We estimate the cost of implementation and maintenance mainly through the transfer of values coming from studies in similar contexts. Proxies are used to estimate the opportunity costs associated with the development of NBS. Finally, these estimations are compiled in a cost-benefit indicator allowing the estimation of the economic efficiency of NBS strategies. The study confirms that the cost of implementation and maintenance of NBS strategies is lower than the cost of grey solutions for the same level of water risk management, emphasizing the better cost-effectiveness of these solutions. Benefits in terms of avoided damages are however not sufficient to cover investment and maintenance costs. The cost–effectiveness of NBS strategies, which are combinations of individual NBS measures, may be improved by combining cost effective individual NBS measures. There is indeed a very large heterogeneity of cost-effectiveness of individual NBS measures (cost/m<sup>3</sup> of water retention). Results also reveal that co-benefits represent the largest share of the value generated by NBS strategies. It is therefore of utmost importance that co-benefits are integrated in the economic valuation of NBS for them to be judged economically efficient. This conclusion must be taken into account in the elaboration of NBS funding strategies.There is finally no clear-cut conclusion on the overall economic efficiency of NBS throughout the case studies. Lez reveal a positive cost-benefit analysis, while Rotterdam and Brague cases do not. Results are therefore case-specific and confirm the importance to carry out thorough economic valuations of a diversity of strategies at each sites, including NBS, grey and hybrid solutions, in order to identify the most adequate strategy for water risk management and to address territorial challenges.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document