Equity and Efficiency in Evaluation of Public Programs

Azzi, Corry F.; Cox, James C.

doi:10.2307/1882019

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If 24 At the same time, other observers likewise misunderstood the deference of multi-objective planners to policymakers. Azzi and Cox (1973), for example, misread Eckstein as advocating that equity-efficiency tradeoffs be totally ignored in policy, rather than left by economists to others. 25 As Porter (1995) argues, one of the chief appeals of benefit-cost analysis was that it was an objective criterion that could settle disputes.…”

Section: Management and Budget (Omb) Led It In The Executive Branchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective or Multi-Objective? Two Historically Competing Visions for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Banzhaf¹

2008

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As they embraced benefit-cost analysis during the mid twentieth century, economists faced several challenges. One challenge was to reconcile two visions for the place of the economist in policy analysis, one limited to providing positive analysis for decisionmakers, the other allowing normative judgments. This tension came to a crisis when, in the 1960s, the Water Resources Council introduced multi-objective benefitcost analysis. The surrounding debate highlights the way philosophical differences can drive the technical details of policy analysis, the way political debates can overshadow academic ones, and the way even social scientists in a narrow subfield can profoundly misunderstand one another. (JEL B2, D6, H 4) for comments and suggestions.Special thanks are owed to Jack Knetsch for suggesting this topic and to Malcolm Rutherford for explaining to me the real point I was trying to make.

show abstract

Section: Management and Budget (Omb) Led It In The Executive Branchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective or Multi-Objective? Two Historically Competing Visions for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Banzhaf¹

2008

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to Swint and Nelson's view of CB studies, Wildavsky (1975) argues that CB studies cannot indicate which program objectives are preferable because different projects result in the payment of costs by groups who may receive different amounts of benefit. In other words, the equity of mental health programs could be seen as equally as important as the efficiency of programs (Azzi & Cox, 1973). Newman et al (1978) provide a method of examining the equity distribution of costs per client for different categories of client functioning levels and ages in community mental health programs.…”

Section: Western Psychological Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%