Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 13–24

Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Anomaly-Proof?

Article

Abstract

In this paper we examine whether cost–benefit analysis is anomaly-susceptible or anomaly-proof. To do this, we address four questions. These are, which anomalies, or problems seem most troublesome for CBA? What coping strategies does the analyst adopt to address these problems? Do these adaptation strategies create new problems? And finally, does adopting these strategies invalidate the results of CBA, or reduce the power of its advice? The anomalies we consider are (i) the observed differences between willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation measures of value; (ii) valuation given information limits, preference uncertainty and preference construction; (iii) hypothetical market bias; (iv) risk perceptions; and (v) risk and preference reversals. We focus our discussion on the estimation of non-market environmental benefits and costs.

Keywords

anomalies behavioural economics cost–benefit analysis preference reversals rationality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allais, M. 1953Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’École AméricaineEconometrica21502546Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Farizo, B., N. Hanley, J. Grande, C. Salt and M. Wilson (2001), ‘Risk perceptions, risk-reducing behaviour and willingness to pay: radioactive contamination in food following a nuclear accident.’ Discussion papers in Economics number 01/4, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  3. Ariely D., G. Loewenstein and D. Prelec (2003) ‘Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences ’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 73–105.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. 1987

    Rationality of Self and Others in an Economic System

    Hogarth, R.Reder, M. eds. Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and PsychologyUniversity of Chicago PressChicago, IL
    Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. J., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, E. 1993Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent ValuationFederal Register5846024614Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K., Cropper, M., Eads, G., Hahn, R., Lave, L., Noll, R., Portney, P., Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V. K., Stavins, R. 1997Is There a Role for Benefit–Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation?Environment and Development Economics2196201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, R., Swanson, J. 2002Economic Valuation with Stated PreferencesEdward Elgar in association with DTLR and DEFRACheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, G. 1962Irrational Behavior and Economic TheoryJournal of Political Economy70113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J., Wakker, P. 2001Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected UtilityManagement Science4714981514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohm, P. 1972Estimating demand for public goods: An experimentEuropean Economic Review3111130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohm, P., Lind, H. 1993Preference Reversal, Real-World Lotteries, and Lottery-Interested SubjectsJournal of Economic Behavior and Organization22327348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bromley, D., Hodge, I. 1990Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural PolicyEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics17197214Google Scholar
  13. Camerer, C. 1995

    Individual Decision Making

    Kagel, J.Roth, A. eds. Handbook of Experimental EconomicsPrinceton University PressPrinceton, NJ587703
    Google Scholar
  14. Camerer, C., Kunreuther, H. 1989Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy ImplicationsJournal of Policy Analysis and Management8565592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P. 2001Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management41179192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M., Wright, J. L. 1996Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goodsLand Economics728099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carson, R. T., T. Groves and M. J. Machina (1999), ‘Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions,’ Plenary Address, Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, June.Google Scholar
  18. Champ, P., Bishop, R., Brown, T., McCollum, D. 1997Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non-Use Benefits from Public GoodsJournal of Environmental Economics and Management33151162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cherry, T., Shogren, J., Crocker, T. T. 2003Rationality spilloversJournal of Environmental Economics and Management456384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cherry T. and J. Shogren (2003), ‘Rationality Crossovers.’ Working paper, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
  21. Chu, Y. P., Chu, R. L. 1990The Subsidence of Preference Reversals in Simplified and Market-Like Experimental SettingsAmerican Economic Review80902911Google Scholar
  22. Cox, J., Grether, D. 1996The Preference Reversal Phenomenon: Response Mode, Markets and IncentivesEconomic Theory7381405Google Scholar
  23. Coursey, D., Hovis, J., Schulze, W. 1987The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of ValueQuarterly Journal of Economics102679690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crocker, T., Shogren, J., Turner, P. 1998Incomplete Beliefs and Nonmarket ValuationResources and Energy Economics20139162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cummings, R., Brookshire, D., Schulze, W. 1986Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation MethodRowman and AllanheldTotowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Cummings, R., Taylor, L. 1999Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A␣Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation MethodAmerican Economic Review89649665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cummings, R., Elliot, S., Harrison, G., Murphy, J. 1997Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?Journal of Political Economy105609621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DETR1998The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of AggregatesDepartment of the Environment, Transport and the RegionsLondonGoogle Scholar
  29. DETR1999The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates: Phase 2Department of the Environment, Transport and the RegionsLondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Ellsberg, D. 1961Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage AxiomsQuarterly Journal of Economics75528556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Epstein, R. 2003Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical LiberalismUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Foster, V., Bateman, I., Harley, D. 1997Real and Hypothetical WTP for Environmental Protection: A Non-Experimental ComparisonJournal of Agricultural Economics48123138Google Scholar
  33. Fox, J., Shogren, J., Hayes, D., Kliebenstein, J. 1998CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Valuations With Experimental MarketsAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics80455465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Friedman, M., Savage, L. J. 1948The utility analysis of choices involving riskJournal of Political Economy56279304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Georgiou, S., Bateman, I., Langford, I., Day, R. 2000Coastal Bathing Water Health Risks: Assessing the Adequacy of Proposals to Amend the 1976 EC DirectiveRisk, Decision and Policy54968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibbard, A. 1973Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General ResultEconometrica51587601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gigerenzer, G. 1991How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond ‘Heuristics and BiasesEuropean Review of Social Psychology283115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gode, D., Sunder, S. 1962Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero Intelligence Traders: Markets as a Partial Substitute for Individual RationalityJournal of Political Economy70113Google Scholar
  39. Gregory, R., Flynn, J., Johnson, S. M., Sattefield, T. A., Slovic, P., Wagner, R. 1997Decision-Pathways Surveys: A Tool for Resource ManagersLand Economics73240254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gunnarsson, S., Shogren, J., Cherry, T. 2003Are Preferences for Skewness Fixed or Fungible?Economics Letters80113121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hanemann, W. M. 1991Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?American Economic Review81635647Google Scholar
  42. Hanemann W. M. and B. KristrÎm (1995) ‘Preference Uncertainty, Optimal Designs and Spikes’, in P.-O. Johansson, B. KristrÎm and K.-G. Mäler (1995) Current Issues in Environmental Economics, Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hanley, , Spash,  1993Cost–Benefit Analysis and the EnvironmentEdward ElgarCheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  44. Harrison, G. and E. RutstrÎm (1999), ‘Experimental Evidence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods,’ Working paper, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
  45. Harsanyi, J. C. 1997Utilities, preferences and substantive goodsSocial Choice and Welfare14129145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Huffman, W. J. Shogren, M. Rousu, and A. Tegene (2003), ‘Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Irwin, J., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., McClelland, G. 1993Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental ValuesJournal of Risk and Uncertainty6518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., Thaler, R. 1990Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase TheoremJournal of Political Economy9813251348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kahneman, D.Tversky, A. eds. 2000Choice, Values, and FramesCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Knetsch, J., Sinden, D. 1984Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of ValueQuarterly Journal of Economics99507521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Knetsch, J. 1997

    Evaluation and Environmental Policy: Recent Behavioural Findings and Further Implications

    Dragun, A.Jacobsson, K. eds. Sustainability and Global Environmental Policy: New PerspectivesEdward ElgarCheltenham
    Google Scholar
  52. Li, C-Z., Mattsson, L. 1995Discrete Choice Under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent ValuationJournal of Environmental Economics and Management28256269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. 1971Reversals of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling DecisionsJournal of Experimental Psychology1011620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. List, J. A., Shogren, J. F. 2002Calibration of Willingness-to-AcceptJournal of Environmental Economics and Management43219233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., Sugden, R. 2003Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?Economic Journal113C153C166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Machina, M. 1987Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and UnsolvedJournal of Economic Perspectives1121154Google Scholar
  57. MacMillan, D., Philip, L., Hanley, N., Alvarez-Farizo, B. 2003Valuing the Benefits of Wild Goose Conservation: A Comparison of Interview and Survey Based ApproachesEcological Economics434959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Munro, A. and N. Hanley. ‘Information, Uncertainty and Contingent Valuation’, in I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis eds., Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Murphy, J., T. Stevens and D. Weatherhead (2003), ‘An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias in Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation’, Discussion paper 2003–2, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  60. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)1994Natural Resource Damage Assessments, Proposed RulesFederal Register591062Google Scholar
  61. Nau, R., McCardle, K. 1991Arbitrage, Rationality, and EquilibriumTheory and Decision31199240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. H. 1992Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing PerspectiveAnnual Review of Psychology4287131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. 1999Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building CodeJournal of Risk and Uncertainty19243270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Plott, C. and K. Zeiler (2003). ‘The Willingness to Pay/Willingness to Accept Gap, the Endowment Effect,’ Subject Misconceptions and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations, Working paper, Caltech.Google Scholar
  65. Ready, R. C., Whitehead, J. C., Blomquist, G. 1995Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are AmbivalentJournal of Environmental Economics and Management29181196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ready, R., Navrud, S., Dubourg, W. R. 2001How Do Respondents With Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?Land Economics77315326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Randall, A. 2002

    Benefit–Cost Considerations Should be Decisive When There Is Nothing More Important at Stake

    Bromley, D.Paavola, J. eds. Economics, Ethics and Environmental PolicyBlackwell PublishingOxford5368
    Google Scholar
  68. Rondeau, D., Schulze, W., Poe, G. 1999Voluntary Revelation of the Demand for Public Goods Using a Provision-Point MechanismJournal of Public Economics72455470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP)1999The Setting of Environmental StandardsHMSOLondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Satterthwaite, M. A. 1975Strategy-Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare FunctionsJournal of Economic Theory10187217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Settle C., T. Cherry and J. Shogren (2003), ‘Rationality Spillovers in Yellowstone,’ Working paper, University of Wyoming.Google Scholar
  72. Shogren, J., Shin, S., Hayes, D., Kliebenstein, J. 1994Resolving Differences In Willingness to Pay and Willingness to AcceptAmerican Economic Review84255270Google Scholar
  73. Shogren, J., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., Wilhelmi, R. 2001Auction Mechanisms and the Measurement of WTP and WTAResource and Energy Economics2397109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shogren J. (2004). ‘Experimental Methods and Valuation,’ in K.-G. Mäler and J. Vincent, eds., Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam, North Holland (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  75. Slovic, P. 2000

    The Construction of Preferences

    Kahneman, D.Tversky, A. eds. Choices, Values and FramesCambridge University PressCambridge
    Google Scholar
  76. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D. 2002Rational Actors or Rational Fools? Implications of the Affect Heuristic for Behavioral EconomicsJournal of Socio-Economics31329342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, V. L. 1991Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and PsychologyJournal of Political Economy99877897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith, V. L. 2003Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in EconomicsAmerican Economic Review93465508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spash, C., Hanley, N. 1995Preferences, Information and Biodiversity PreservationEcological Economics12191208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Starmer, C. 2000Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under RiskJournal of Economic Literature38332382Google Scholar
  81. Stirling, A., Mayer, A. 1999Re-thinking RiskScience Policy Research UnitSussexGoogle Scholar
  82. Sugden, R. 1999

    Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice

    Bateman, I.Willis, K. eds. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation MethodOxford University PressOxford
    Google Scholar
  83. Sunstein, C. 2002Risk and ReasonCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. 1991Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependence ModelQuarterly Journal of Economics10610391061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tversky, A., Simonson,  1993Context-Dependent PreferencesManagement Science39117185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1997), Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Final Report. Washington DC, Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  87. Viscusi, W. K. 1998Rational Risk PolicyClarendon Press-Oxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentUniversity of StirlingUK
  2. 2.Department of Economics and FinanceUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations