An Aggregate Measure for Benefit–Cost Analysis

Abstract

The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analyses, but it has also been widely criticized as ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest the use of an aggregate measure (KHM) instead of KH, where M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that all goods for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as economic goods. This addition, however, runs up against objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.

Citation

Zerbe, R.O., Bauman, Y. and Finkle, A. (2007), "An Aggregate Measure for Benefit–Cost Analysis", Zerbe, R.O. (Ed.) Research in Law and Economics (Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-5895(07)23010-6