Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frictions on the Application Level: Costs and Benefits, Discounting, Uncertainty, Fact Base

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economic Evaluation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Ethics

  • 337 Accesses

Abstract

Although the above-mentioned well-known arguments against cost-benefit analysis are unconvincing, cost-benefit analysis fails because of certain unsolvable application problems. The frequently debated issues of dealing with risk, uncertainty and discounting of future concerns are by no means the only relevant aspects, but the very uncertainty of many cost-and-benefit effects mathematically precludes a monetarily exact quantification of decision situations. Even if leaving this aside, economists do not have a reliable way to represent the various cost-and-benefit effects that are not available in the form of market prices in a truly monetary way, despite numerous attempts. Inquiring about a hypothetical willingness to pay or supposedly observing the behavior of individuals (morals of the markets) leads to very incomplete, fictitious and, among other things, dispersed findings also due to very differently distributed abilities to pay. Empirically, the belief in infinite economic growth underlying cost-benefit analysis appears rather less robust. Thus, there are unsolvable application problems for the cost-benefit analysis. Those problems especially (but not exclusively) become visible in the context of climate protection, both in overall considerations of societal problems and in individual analyses, such as the construction of a coal-fired power plant.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nordhaus 2008, p. 4; in detail on economic evaluation methods for human life Nestle 2012, p. 182 et seq.; Hammer 2011, p. 211 et seq.; Burtraw and Sterner 2009. Characterizing (and mostly critical) of preference-based, subjectivistic, naturalistic thinking also: von Kutschera 1982, p. 126 et seq. and passim.

  2. 2.

    Economic voices in the literature (such as Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 62 et seq. and 107 et seq.; Hampicke 2001, p. 151 et seq.; Fromm 1997, p. 95 et seq. and 221 et seq.; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 315 et seq.; Nestle 2012, p. 77 et seq, 182 et seq. and 223 et seq.) miss the point if they assume that only large-scale questions and processes of change would be difficult to grasp.

  3. 3.

    Susnjar 2010, p. 219 et seq.; Weimann and Hoffmann 2003, p. 17 et seq.; Spangenberg and Settele 2010, p. 327 et seq.; Baumgärtner 2003; Hoffmann et al. 2005, p. 25 et seq.; Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011, p. 16 et seq.; Rogall 2013, p. 213; Rogall 2015, p. 478 et seq.; see also Haensgen 2002, p. 10 et seq.; very incompletely (and without real justification optimistically) addressed in the allegedly synthesis by Brouwer et al., 2013, p. 56 et seq.

  4. 4.

    On this pro toto Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 138.

  5. 5.

    Unmüßig 2014, p. 1; FoEE 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Hey 2012, p. 125 et seq.; Pissarskoi 2014, p. 90; Fromm 1997, p. 95 et seq.; SRU 2012, p. 35 et seq.; Hampicke 2001, p. 151 et seq.

  6. 6.

    Unmüßig 2014, p. 1; FoEE 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 323; Fromm 1997, p. 95 et seq.; ignoring this point: Pearce et al. 2006, p. 251 et seq.

  7. 7.

    See on this Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 107 et seq.; Fromm 1997; Schlaudt 2016, p. 43 et seq.; Haensgen 2002, p. 11; Hampicke 2001, p. 151 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Hampicke 2011; FoEE 2014, p. 3 et seq.; Unmüßig 2014, p. 1; largely confined to this problem is the otherwise methodologically rather carefree study by Brouwer et al., 2013, p. 60 et seq.

  9. 9.

    On the following criticism Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.; Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, passim; Pissarskoi and von Möllendorff 2013, p. 7 et seq.; Mathis 2009, p. 113 et seq.; Otsuka 2004; Meyer 2006, p. 136 et seq.; Hampicke 2011; Binswanger 2001, p. 67 et seq.; Pearce et al. 2006, p. 91 et seq. und 105 et seq.; Lienhoop and Hansjürgens 2010/2011, p. 255 et seq.; Hirschfeld 2012, p. 277 et seq.; UBA 2007, p. 93 et seq.

  10. 10.

    See pars pro toto Unnerstall 1999, p. 180; Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.; admitted at Stern 2009, p. 92.

  11. 11.

    For a detailed discussion of the economics of quantifying lost life years, see Pearce et al. 2006, p. 196 et seq.; Nestle 2012, p. 182 et seq.; Hammer 2011, p. 211 et seq.; Burtraw and Sterner 2009.

  12. 12.

    See in detail on these points of view Endres and Holm-Müller 1998, p. 162 et seq.; Baumgärtner 2012, p. 82 et seq.; Hey 2012, p. 125 (128); Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 124 et seq.; Fromm 1997, p. 153 et seq.; Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.; Breunung 2001, p. 127 et seq.; Pearce et al. 2006, p. 282 and passim.

  13. 13.

    Also noted in economic writing by Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 315 et seq.; Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, passim; Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.

  14. 14.

    See on this with further references Lange and Krull 2014, p. 166 et seq.; Ekardt 2019, § 6 D. IV.

  15. 15.

    Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 316; Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 50 et seq. und 66 et seq.; Fromm 1997, p. 153 et seq.; see also Nestle 2012, p. 182 et seq.

  16. 16.

    The methodological problems of interdisciplinary behavioral research are discussed with further references in Ekardt 2019, Ch. 1.7.

  17. 17.

    See on this Pearce et al. 2006, p. 155 et seq.; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 314 et seq.

  18. 18.

    Ignored at Endres and Holm-Müller 1998, p. VII und 156 et seq.

  19. 19.

    See on this Ekardt 2019, Ch. 3.8.

  20. 20.

    For a summary see Jamieson 2014, p. 115 et seq.; furthermore, on the ability to pay: Fromm 1997, p. 22.

  21. 21.

    On the mathematical details: Breyer and Kolmar 2014, p. 65 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Mentioned in Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 308; Arrow et al., 1997, p. 196 et seq.

  23. 23.

    See IPCC 2014, WG III, Ch. 2.6. Even to the extent that voices of philosophical discourse are explicitly noted there, they are such voices that themselves argue in a more or less strongly preference-based manner, such as Amartya Sen (who is primarily an economist) or utilitarian thinkers.

  24. 24.

    This is also explicitly demanded, for example, by Lienhoop and Hansjürgens 2011, p. 229 et seq.; Stern 2009 also contains many such formulations.

  25. 25.

    Skeptical also Anderson et al. 2015.

  26. 26.

    Ignored at Simon 1993; too optimistic also Susnjar 2010, p. 226 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Visible at Endres and Holm-Müller 1998, p. 69; Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 11 et seq.; aptly: Schlaudt 2016, p. 138 et seq.; Hausman 2012, p. 43 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Cum grano salis, such an approach can then also indicate which states are to be considered satisfactory; to that mental connection Susnjar 2010, p. 226 et seq.

  29. 29.

    For a list of factors see Stern 2007, p. 146.

  30. 30.

    Pissarskoi and von Möllendorff 2013, p. 7 et seq.; Wink 2002, p. 146 et seq.; Haensgen 2002, p. 11; Wätzold 2000, p. 299 et seq.; UBA 2007, p. 23 et seq.; Sunstein 2005, p. 351 et seq.; Künzler 2012; Hampicke 2001, p. 151 et seq.; Meggle 2010, p. 125; Löhr 2009, p. 40 et seq. und 62 et seq.; Fromm 1997, p. 219; Hansjürgens and Lienhoop 2015, p. 109; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 315 et seq.; in detail on economics and uncertainty Nestle 2012, p. 30 et seq.

  31. 31.

    TEEB 2010; see also Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011, p. 16 et seq. and 186 et seq.; Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011, p. 15 (16).

  32. 32.

    On the different approaches see UBA 2007, p. 23 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Furthermore, it is ignored that even from figures that reflect facts, very different conclusions can often be drawn. An interesting example of this is the (real or supposed) deterrent effect of the death penalty in Kirchgässner 2011a, b, p. 18 et seq.

  34. 34.

    Critical of discounting Unnerstall 1999, p. 320 et seq.; Hampicke 2011; Jamieson 2014, p. 115 et seq.; Pissarskoi and von Möllendorff 2013, p. 7 et seq.; Pissarskoi 2014, p. 79 et seq. ; open Birnbacher 1988; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 142 et seq.; Fromm 1997, p. 236 et seq.; Goulder and Stavins 2002, p. 673 et seq.; Pearce et al. 2006, p. 190 et seq.; Mathis 2011, where discounting against the yardstick of alternative investments is considered permissible (a follow-up question would be the growth orientation therein); precisely not different (though this is often overlooked) Ramsey 1928.

  35. 35.

    Goulder and Stavins 2002, p. 673 et seq.; Hanley and Barbier 2009, p. 163; Pearce et al. 2006, p. 190 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Mentioned at Moellendorf 2014, p. 90 et seq.; Pearce et al. 2006, p. 190 et seq.

  37. 37.

    See in more detail Ekardt 2019, Ch. 3.3; Unnerstall 1999.

  38. 38.

    See in more detail Fromm 1997, p. 247 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Elaborated in more detail at Hampicke 2011.

  40. 40.

    See Ekardt 2019, Ch. 3.7; Ekardt 2021, § 5 C. II. 2.

  41. 41.

    Mathis 2011, p. 165 et seq.; Hammer 2011, p. 211 et seq.

  42. 42.

    Mentioned in Jamieson 2014, p. 115 et seq.

  43. 43.

    See as an example Nordhaus 2008, p. 5 et seq. und 123 et seq.; Paqué 2010, p. 102 et seq.

  44. 44.

    See with further references Ekardt 2019, Ch. 2.6 and 3.4; more optimistic regarding the empirical happiness potentials of degrowth (and the normative answerability of the question of right happiness) with different nuances Hosang et al. 2005; Jensen and Scheub 2015; Paech 2014.

  45. 45.

    Aptly at Gorz 1989, p. 16 and passim; Schlaudt 2016, p. 137 et seq.; as an example Paqué 2010, p. 102 et seq.; Stern 2007.

  46. 46.

    See on the following Shindell 2015, p. 313 et seq.; Machol and Rizk 2013, p. 75 et seq.; Fücks 2013, p. 105 et seq.; Jakob and Edenhofer 2014, p. 447 et seq.; Ismer 2014, p. 65 et seq.; Paqué 2010, p. 102 et seq.; Ekardt 2019, Ch. 1.4; Stern 2007.

  47. 47.

    Jackson 2016; Ward et al., 2016; Paech 2014; Schulz and Bailey 2014, p. 277 et seq.; Scheidler 2015, p. 205 et seq.; Stengel 2011, p. 163 et seq.; Ekardt 2019, Ch. 1.4; for a more optimistic perspective see Rogall 2012, p. 163 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Calculated, for example, for Canada by Victor and Rosenbluth 2007, p. 492 et seq.

  49. 49.

    In accordance with legal practice, parliamentary, governmental and EU Commission documents as well as laws and judgments are not listed in the bibliography, as they can be found unequivocally based on the reference given in the continuous text or via the general search engines. The last access date for all Internet sources is 31.10.2021.

References

In accordance with legal practice, parliamentary, governmental and EU Commission documents as well as laws and judgments are not listed in the bibliography, as they can be found unequivocally based on the reference given in the continuous text or via the general search engines. The last access date for all Internet sources is 31.10.2021.

  • Anderson M, Teisl M, Noblet C, Klein S (2015) The incompatibility of benefit–cost analysis with sustainability science. Sustain Sci 10(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0266-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K et al (1997) Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health and safety regulation? Environ Dev Econ 272:196 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgärtner S (2003) Warum Messung und Bewertung biologischer Vielfalt nicht unabhängig voneinander möglich ist. In: Weimann J, Hoffmann A, Hoffmann S (eds) Messung und ökonomische Bewertung von Biodiversität – Mission impossible? Metropolis, Marburg, p 43 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgärtner S (2012) Normative Begründung der Nachhaltigkeitsökonomik. In: Studierendeninitiative Greening the University (ed) Wissenschaft für nachhaltige Entwicklung! Multiperspektivische Beiträge zu einer verantwortungsbewussten Wissenschaft. Metropolis-Verlag, Tübingen, p 273 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger M (2001) Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Ecol Econ 36:119 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher D (1988) Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Breunung L (2001) Umweltschutz unter dem Optimalitäts- und Effizienzpostulat. Die wohlfahrtsökonomische Konzeption in soziologischer Sicht. In: Gawel E (ed) Effizienz im Umweltrecht. Grundsatzfragen einer wirtschaftlichen Umweltnutzung aus rechts-, wirtschafts- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 127 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer F, Kolmar M (2014) Grundlagen der Wirtschaftspolitik, 4th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R et al (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf

  • Burtraw D, Sterner T (2009) Climate Change Abatement. http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/09_04_06_Climate_Change_Abatement.aspx

  • Ekardt F (2019) Sustainability. Transformation, governance, ethics, law. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekardt F (2021) Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit. Ethische, rechtliche, politische und transformative Zugänge – am Beispiel von Klimawandel, Ressourcenknappheit und Welthandel, 4th edn. (= 3rd ed. of the new edition). Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres A, Holm-Müller K (1998) Die Bewertung von Umweltschäden. Theorie und Praxis sozioökonomischer Verfahren. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) (2014) Nature is not for sale. The dangers of commodifying our natural world. http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/foee_position_nature_is_not_for_sale.pdf

  • Fromm O (1997) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer ökonomischen Bewertung des Ökosystems Boden. P. Lang, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Fücks R (2013) Intelligent wachsen. Die grüne Revolution. Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorz A (1989) Kritik der ökonomischen Vernunft. Sinnfragen am Ende der Arbeitsgesellschaft. Rotbuch, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulder L, Stavins R (2002) Discounting. An eye on the future. Nature 419:673 et seq

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haensgen T (2002) Das Kyoto-Protokoll: Eine ökonomische Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der flexiblen Mechanismen, Working paper. Bamberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer B (2011) Valuing the invaluable? Valuation of human life in cost-efficient assessments of regulatory interventions. In: Mathis K (ed) Efficiency, sustainability, and justice to future generations. Springer, Berlin, p 211 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampicke U (2001) Grenzen der monetären Bewertung. Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse und globales Klima. Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik:151 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampicke U (2011) Climate change economics and discounted utilitarianism. Ecol Econ 72:45 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Barbier E (2009) Pricing nature. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansjürgens B, Lienhoop N (2015) Was uns die Natur wert ist. Potenziale ökonomischer Bewertung. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation – from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26:43 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey C (2012) Wege aus dem Wachstumsdilemma. Kritische Anmerkungen zu einer aktuellen Debatte. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht 35:125 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfeld J (2012) Kosten und Nutzen der Anpassung an den Klimawandel – ein Verteilungsproblem. In: Ekardt F (ed) Klimagerechtigkeit. Ethische, rechtliche, ökonomische und transdisziplinäre Zugänge. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg, p 277 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann A, Hoffmann S, Weimann J (2005) Irrfahrt Biodiversität. Eine kritische Sicht auf europäische Biodiversitätspolitik. Metropolis-Verl, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosang M, Fraenzle S, Markert B (2005) Die emotionale Matrix. Grundlagen für gesellschaftlichen Wandel und nachhaltige Innovation. Oekom-Verl, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014) Fifth Assessment Report. www.ipcc.int

  • Ismer R (2014) Klimaschutz als Rechtsproblem. Steuerung durch Preisinstrumente vor dem Hintergrund einer parallelen Evolution von Klimaschutzregimes verschiedener Staaten. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson T (2016) Prosperity without growth, 2nd edn. London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakob M, Edenhofer O (2014) Growth, degrowth, and the commons. Oxf Rev Econ Policy:447 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time. Why the struggle against climate change failed – and what it means for our future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen A, Scheub U (2015) Glücksökonomie. Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgässner G (2011a) Der Ökonom als Berater – Objektivität, Ideologie und Eigeninteresse. Jahrbuch normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik:219 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgässner G (2011b) Econometric estimates of deterrence of the death penalty – facts or ideology? CESifo Working Paper No. 3443. University of St. Gallen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzler A (2012) The jurisprudence of welfare maximization. Embracing complexity and uncertainty in the environmental, health and safety context. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 98:1 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange C, Krull D (2014) Infrastrukturelle Wasserdienstleistungen. Zur Funktion kostendeckender Wasserpreise nach Art. 9 der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie und ihre mögliche Anwendung auf den Aufstau von Gewässern als infrastrukturelle Wasserdienstleistung für Binnenschifffahrt und Wasserkraft. Metropolis-Verl, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienhoop N, Hansjürgens B (2010/2011) Vom Nutzen der ökonomischen Bewertung in der Umweltpolitik. GAIA:255 et seq. und 229 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Löhr D (2009) Die Plünderung der Erde. Metropolis-Verl, Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Machol B, Rizk S (2013) Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts. Environ Int 52:75 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis K (2009) Efficiency instead of justice? Searching for the philosophical foundations of the economic analysis of law. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis K (2011) Consequentialism in law. In: Mathis K (ed) Efficiency, sustainability, and justice to future generations. Springer, Berlin, p 3 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Meggle G (2010) Handlungstheoretische Semantik. Berlin et al, De Gruyter

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer K (2006) How to be consistent without saving the greater number. Philos Public Aff 34:136 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moellendorf D (2014) The moral challenge of dangerous climate change. Values, poverty, and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestle I (2012) The costs of climate change in the agricultural sector. A comparison of two calculation approaches, Dissertation, Flensburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W (2008) A question of balance. Weighing the options on global warming policies. Yale University Press, New Haven et al

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka M (2004) Skepticism about saving the greater number. Philos Public Aff 32:413 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paech N (2014) Liberation from excess. Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Paqué K-H (2010) Wachstum! Die Zukunft des globalen Kapitalismus. Hanser, Carl, Munich

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce D, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Recent development. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pissarskoi E (2014) Gesellschaftliche Wohlfahrt und Klimawandel. Umgang mit normativen Annahmen und Ungewissheiten bei der klimaökonomischen Politikberatung. Oekom-Verl, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Pissarskoi E, von Möllendorff C (2013) Ökonomie der Anpassung an den Klimawandel. Literaturauswertung: Bewertung von Klimafolgen und Kosten-Nutzen-Analysen von Anpassungsstrategien in Deutschland. Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey FP (1928) A mathematical theory of saving. Econ J:543 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C (eds) (2011) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogall H (2012) Nachhaltige Ökonomie. Ökonomische Theorie und Praxis einer Nachhaltigen Entwicklung, 2nd edn. Marburg (3rd ed. angekündigt für 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogall H (2013) Volkswirtschaftslehre für Sozialwissenschaftler. Einführung in eine zukunftsfähige Wirtschaftslehre, 2nd edn. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogall H (2015) Grundlagen einer nachhaltigen Wirtschaftslehre. Volkswirtschaftslehre für die Studierenden des 21. Jahrhunderts, 2nd edn. Marburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (2012) Umweltgutachten 2012. Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidler F (2015) Das Ende der Megamaschine. Geschichte einer scheiternden Zivilisation. Promedia, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaudt O (2016) Wirtschaft im Kontext. Eine Einführung in die Philosophie der Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Zeiten des Umbruchs. Vittorio Klostermann GmbH, Frankfurt a.M

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz C, Bailey I (2014) The green economy and post-growth regimes – opportunities and challenges for economic geography. Geogr Ann 96:277 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shindell D (2015) The social cost of atmospheric release. Clim Chang 130:313 et seq

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1993) Homo rationalis. Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg J, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol Complex:327 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel O (2011) Suffizienz. Die Konsumgesellschaft in der ökologischen Krise. oekom verlag, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2007) Stern review. The economics of climate change. HM Treasury, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2009) A blueprint for a safer planet. How to manage climate change and create a new era of progress and prosperity. Bodley Head, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2005) Law of fear. Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Susnjar D (2010) Proportionality, fundamental rights, and balance of powers. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the ecological and economic foundations

    Google Scholar 

  • Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (2007) Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltschäden. Methodenkonvention zur Schätzung externer Umweltkosten. Dessau

    Google Scholar 

  • Unmüßig B (2014) Monetizing nature – taking precaution on a slippery slope. http://us.boell.org/2014/08/26/monetizing-nature-taking-precaution-slippery-slope

  • Unnerstall H (1999) Rechte zukünftiger Generationen. Königshausen und Neumann, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor P, Rosenbluth G (2007) Managing without growth. Ecol Econ 61:492 et seq

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Kutschera F (1982) Grundlagen der Ethik. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ward J et al (2016) Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733

  • Wätzold F (2000) Efficiency and applicability of economic concepts dealing with environmental risk and ignorance. Ecol Econ 2(33):299–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimann J, Hoffmann S (2003) Warum Messung und Bewertung biologischer Vielfalt nicht unabhängig voneinander möglich sind. In: Weimann J, Hoffmann A, Hoffmann S (eds) Messung und ökonomische Bewertung von Biodiversität – Mission impossible? Metropolis, Marburg, p 17 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • Wink R (2002) Generationengerechtigkeit im Zeitalter der Gentechnik. Evolutionär-institutionenökonomische Betrachtungen. Nomos-Verl.-Ges, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy, Leipzig, Berlin, Sachsen, Germany

    Felix Ekardt

Authors
  1. Felix Ekardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ekardt, F. (2022). Frictions on the Application Level: Costs and Benefits, Discounting, Uncertainty, Fact Base. In: Economic Evaluation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economic Ethics. Environmental Humanities: Transformation, Governance, Ethics, Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99284-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation