Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis

Abstract

This paper provides a brief review of the theory of benefit cost analysis and then discusses proposals by economists calling for developing a new foundation for applied welfare economics. These proposals assume individual choices cannot be reconciled with coherent preferences. As a result, applied welfare economics must consider a different basis for defining the public tradeoffs to be used in project evaluation. This analysis concludes none of the available proposals meets the needs for policy evaluation with benefit cost analysis. The paper also offers a different explanation for the seemingly incoherent preferences implied by some choices. The last part of the paper reports the results of laboratory experiments intended to evaluate whether market outcomes would allow analysts to discriminate among alternative hypothesis for seemingly irrational choices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ariely D: Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Collins, New York (2008)

  2. Aumann RJ: Existence of competitive equilibrium in markets with a continuum of traders. Econometrica 34, 1–17 (1966)

  3. Aumann RJ: Values of markets with a continuum of traders. Econometrica 43, 611–646 (1975)

  4. Bernheim BD, Rangel A: Behavioral public economics: welfare and policy analyses with non-standard decision makers. In: Diamond, P, Vartiainen, H (eds) Behavioral economics and its applications, Princeton University Press, Princeton (2007a)

  5. Bernheim BD, Rangel A: Toward choice theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Am Eco Rev Pap Proc 97, 464–470 (2007b)

  6. Bernheim BD, Rangel A: Beyond revealed preference: choice theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Q J Eco 124, 51–104 (2009)

  7. Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2008) How are preferences revealed? NBER working paper #13976, April

  8. Bradford DF: Benefit cost analysis and demand curves for public goods. Kyklos 23(4), 1145–1159 (1970)

  9. Brown JM, Rosen H: On the estimation of structural hedonic price models. Econonmetrica 50(3), 765–768 (1982)

  10. Buchanan J (1987) The relatively absolute absolutes, presented to Southern Economic Association, November 22

  11. Carlin BI, Gervais S, Manso G (2009) When does libertarian paternalism work? NBER working paper # 15139, July

  12. Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K (2007) Taxation and salience. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, working paper, March

  13. Davis DD, Holt CA: Experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1993)

  14. Epple D: Hedonic prices and implicit markets: estimating demand and supply functions for differentiated products. J Political Eco 95, 59–80 (1987)

  15. Freeman AM III: The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (2003)

  16. Greenstone M, Gayer T: Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics. J Environ Eco Manag 57, 21–44 (2009)

  17. Heckman J: Comments. In: Feldstein, M (eds) Behavioral simulations in tax policy analysis, pp. 70–82. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1983)

  18. Klaiber HA, Smith VK (2009) Evaluating Rubin’s causal model for measuring the capitalization of environmental amenities, NBER working paper No. 14957, May

  19. Köszegi B, Rabin M: Mistakes in choice based welfare analyses. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 97(2), 477–481 (2007)

  20. Levinson A (2009) Valuing public goods using happiness data: the case of air quality, unpublished paper presented at the NBER Environmental and Energy Economics workshop, Cambridge, April

  21. List JA, Millimet DL: The market: catalyst for rationality and filter for irrationality. BE J Econ Anal Policy 8(1, Frontiers), 1–53 (2008)

  22. Mabry BD: An analysis of work and other constraints on choices of activities. West Econ J 8, 213–225 (1970)

  23. Moore EM (2009) An experimental examination of market performance with nontraditional buyer incentives, unpublished undergraduate honors essay, Arizona State University, May

  24. Ng YK: An analysis of work and other constraints on choices of activities: comment. West Econ J 9(June), 226–229 (1971)

  25. Plott CR, Smith VL: An experimental examination of two exchange institutions. Rev Econ Stud 45, 133–153 (1978)

  26. Plott CR, Smith J: Instability of equilibria in experimental markets: upward sloping demands, externalities, and fad-like incentives. South Econ J 65(3), 405–426 (1999)

  27. Rust J (forthcoming) Comments on: structural vs. atheoretic approaches to econometrics by Michael Keane. J Econ (in press)

  28. Saez E (2002) Do taxpayers bunch at kinks points?, unpublished paper, University of California Berkeley, June 13

  29. Schwarz N, Strock F: Reports of subjective well being: judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In: Kahneman, D, Diener, E, Schwarz, N (eds) Well being: the foundation of hedonic psychology, Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1999)

  30. Smith VK: Reflections on the literature. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(Summer), 292–308 (2008)

  31. Smith VK, Van Houtven G, Pattanayak SK: Benefit transfer via preference calibration: “prudential algebra” for policy. Land Economics 78(1), 132–152 (2002)

  32. Sugden R: The opportunity criterion: consumer sovereignty without the assumption of coherent preferences. Am Econ Rev 94, 1014–1033 (2004)

  33. Sugden R: Coping with preference anomalies in cost-benefit analysis: a market simulation. Environ Resour Econ 32(1), 129–160 (2005)

  34. Sugden R: Market simulation and the provision of public goods: a non-paternalistic response to anomalies in environmental evaluation. J Environ Econ Manag 57, 87–103 (2009)

  35. Thaler RH, Sunstein C: Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven (2008)

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to V. Kerry Smith.

Additional information

V. Kerry Smith is a W. P. Carey Professor of Economics, Arizona State University, University Fellow, Resources for the Future, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research and Eric. M. Moore is a Research Assistant at Resources for the Future, respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, V.K., Moore, E.M. Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis. Environ Resource Econ 46, 217–234 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9358-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Behavioral economics
  • Benefit cost analysis