Abstract
The principle of efficiency holds as the basic standard of market decision-making. Routinely however, it has been applied as a standard of judgement to public choices as well. This essay proceeds on the basis of four assumptions. First, that efficiency, outside the market context, has two manifestations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Cost-Benefit Methods) which are made distinct by one's concentration on judging the most cost-effective means to policy ends otherwise arrived at, and the other's use of efficiency to judge both the means and end of policy choice. Second, that although efficiency is a fit primary decision standard within a competitive market a principle with more distinctly ‘moral weight’ is needed to judge ends outside of markets. Third, that one possible source of this ‘moral weight’ is individual autonomy or freedom that is a fit ethical principle upon which to set the ends of public policy. Fourth, that the use of cost-benefit methods rather than cost-effectiveness analysis implies that it can satisfy the requirements of both efficiency and autonomy. If the efficient policy choice also provided protection of individual autonomy then cost-benefit methods could be used for the analysis of public policy ends, but if it fails to have a deeper moral justification then the role of efficiency in the public sector must be limited only to its judgement of cost-effective means to policy ends arrived at by a non-efficiency standard. I will argue that the autonomy of individual choice in a market is a ‘thin’ and morally impoverished ethical standard of judgement that adds no additional ‘moral weight’ to market efficiency for the judgements of policy ends. This conclusion limits efficiency to the consideration of public means alone, eliminating cost-benefit methods as a fit approach to policy analysis while simultaneously promoting cost-effectiveness analysis and the search for an independent moral standard for the assessment of public ends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barry, Brian (1992). ‘Welfare Economics and the Liberal Tradition,’ in John Martin Gillroy and Maurice Wade, eds. The Moral Dimensions of Public Policy Choice: Beyond the Market Paradigm. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Boadway, Robin W. (1979). Public Sector Economics. Cambridge: Winthrop Press.
Christman, John, ed. (1989). ‘The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy.’ New York: Oxford.
Coase, R. H. (1960). ‘The Problem of Social Cost.’ Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44.
Director, Aaron (1964). ‘The Parity of the Economic Market Place.’ Journal of Law and Economics 7:1–10.
Donagan, Alan (1977). The Theory of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Dworkin, Ronald (1980). ‘Why Efficiency,’ in M. Kuperberg and C. Beitz, eds. Law, Economics and Philosophy. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Alllenheld, pp. 123–142.
Fishkin, James S. (1979). Tyranny and Legitimacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Gramlich, Edward M. (1981). Benefit-Cost Analysis of Government Progams. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hayek, Friedrich (1976). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hill, Thomas E. (1973). ‘The Hypothetical Imperative.’ Philosophical Review 82:429–450.
Kant, Immanuel (1786). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Berlin: Prussian Academy of Sciences.
Kant, Immanuel (1788). Critique of Practical Reason. Berlin: Prussian Academy of Sciences.
Kuflik, Arthur (1984). ‘The Inalienability of Autonomy.’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 13: 271–98.
Lave, Lester B. (1981). The Strategy of Social Regulation: Decision Frameworks for Policy. Washington D.C.: Brookings.
Layard, Richard, ed. (1972). Cost-Benefit Analysis. Middlesex: Penguin.
Leonard, Herman B. and Richard J. Zeckhauser. ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis Applied to Risk: Its Philosophy and Ligitimacy.’ Working Paper, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, University of Maryland. This essay has more recently appeared in Douglas Maclean, Values at Risk. Totowa, New Jersey: Roman and Allenheld, pp. 31–48.
Mishan E. J. (1981). Introduction to Normative Economicis. New York: Oxford University.
Mishan E. J. (1982). Cost-Benefit Analysis. London: George Allan and Unwin.
Mishan E. J. and Talbot Page (1992). ‘The Methodology of Cost-Benefit Methods as Applied to the Ozone Problem,’ in John Martin Gillroy and Maurice Wade, eds. The Moral Dimensions of Public Policy Choice: Beyond the Market Paradigm. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic.
Okun, Arthur M. (1975). Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington D.C.: Brookings.
Page, Talbot (1973). Economics of Involuntary Transfers. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Page, Talbot (1983). ‘Intergenerational Justice as Opportunity,’ in Douglas MacLean and Peter Brown, eds. Energy and the Future. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 38–58.
Posner, Richard (1983). The Economics of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rosenberg, Alexander (1988). Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview.
Sagoff, Mark (1986). ‘The Principles of Federal Pollution Control Law,’ in Minnesota Law Review 71: 55–13.
Sagoff, Mark (1988). The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, Amartya K (1974). ‘Choice, Orderings and Morality,’ in S. Korner, ed. Practical Reason. New Haven: Yale University, pp. 54–67.
Sen, Amartya K. (1982). ‘Behaviour and the Concept of Preference,’ in A. K. Sen, ed. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Cambridge, Massachusets: Harvard University.
Wolff, Robert Paul (1979). In Defense of Anarchism. New York: Harper and Row.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This essay was originally prepared for the 1989 meeting of the APSA in Atlanta and I wish to thank all those who read and commented on my work at that time. In addition, I would like to thank those who participated in its evolution to this form: Douglas MacLean, Mark Sagoff, Brian Barry, Alan Donagan, Russell Hardin, Maurice Wade, Andy Gold, Thomas Reilly, Diana Evans, an anonymous reviewer at Policy Sciences and its two editors, William Ascher and G. Brewer.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gillroy, J.M. The ethical poverty of cost-benefit methods: Autonomy, efficiency and public policy choice. Policy Sci 25, 83–102 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233742
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00233742