Table of Contents

Handbook of Research on Cost–Benefit Analysis

Handbook of Research on Cost–Benefit Analysis

Elgar original reference

Edited by Robert J. Brent

This Handbook provides an authoritative overview of current research in the field of cost–benefit analysis and is designed as a starting point for those interested in undertaking advanced research. The Handbook contains major contributions to the development of the field, focussing on standard microeconomic policy evaluations, the relatively neglected area of macroeconomic policy and its integration into a formal CBA framework, and dynamic considerations in CBA

Chapter 6: Cost–Benefit Analysis of Environmental Projects and the Role of Distributional Weights

Robert J. Brent and Booi Themeli

Subjects: development studies, development economics, economics and finance, development economics, environmental economics, health policy and economics, methodology of economics, welfare economics, environment, environmental economics, social policy and sociology, health policy and economics


Robert J. Brent and Booi Themeli 1 Introduction Does the standard cost–benefit framework break down when one is dealing with projects that impact the environment? A recent contribution by Brekke (1997) suggested that the standard framework does have inherent weaknesses. The numeraire matters in that a positive evaluation using income as the numeraire could easily be reversed when environmental goods are used as the numeraire. The outcome for environmental projects would then seem to be indeterminate. Johansson (1998, p. 489) responded by arguing that Brekke’s conclusion follows only ‘due to a very unusual interpretation of the meaning of a social cost–benefit analysis’. He therefore proceeds to demonstrate that the numeraire does not matter. Finally, Drèze (1998, p. 484) agrees ‘that Johansson’s rejoinder is undoubtedly correct’, yet he claims that the numeraire does matter if a distributionally unweighted cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is undertaken. The unresolved issue is, how can Johansson’s and Drèze’s analyses both be correct? Apart from this unresolved issue, there is the difficulty that the intuition that motivated Brekke’s contribution was lost in the debate. He argued that it was the fact that environmental goods are of the nature of pure public goods that causes the choice of numeraire to be an issue. Unfortunately the implication of this feature of environmental goods did not appear in his analysis even though the assumption of equal consumption of environmental goods was present in his calculations. Drèze recognized that there was something important in Brekke’s analysis...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information