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

Abstract

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.

Becoming Applied: The Transformation of Economics after 1970

“…Jardini's narrative thus suggests that a major channel whereby social unrest and economic and political disturbances may have weighted on economic research was through governments' responses, political and legal. A detailed case study of such process is provided by Banzhaf's (2009) account of how Cost-Benefit Analysis was used for water resources 19 management. He shows that competing ways of using cost-benefits tools for water resources management rested upon diverging conceptions of welfare and of the economist' role in the policy-making process.…”

Towards the Optimal Management of the Northeast Arctic Cod Fishery

“…Therefore, it has been suggested that successful fisheries management is largely a question about transparency and congruency of objectives (Dankel et al, 2008;Hilborn, 2007;Squires, 2009). In principle, there are two potential ways to give policy recommendations when facing multiple objectives; see Banzhaf (2009). The first approach assumes that the relative shadow prices of financial, environmental and social objectives are known so that their weighted sum can be maximized.…”

Economists’ interest in collective decision after World War II: a history

“…It was, ultimately, the political process that should decide on the weighting: "in no event should the technician arrogate the weighting of objectives to himself," Eckstein (1961, p. 449) argued. The former group thus emphasized consumer sovereignty, while the latter promoted a vision of political sovereignty in which elected officials represented the collective choice of citizens (Banzhaf 2009). Similar debates took place in urban economics, which explained why MIT welfare economist Jerome Rothenberg (1967, p. 21-22) tried to revamp the CBA techniques used to evaluate urban renewal policies as the reflection of a democratic decision process.…”