Serveur d'exploration Hippolyte Bernheim

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards

Identifieur interne : 000774 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000773; suivant : 000775

Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards

Auteurs : Lisa A. Robinson ; James K. Hammitt

Source :

RBID : ISTEX:5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132

English descriptors

Abstract

As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.

Url:
DOI: 10.2202/2152-2812.1059

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Robinson, Lisa A" sort="Robinson, Lisa A" uniqKey="Robinson L" first="Lisa A" last="Robinson">Lisa A. Robinson</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Independent Consultant</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author>
<name sortKey="Hammitt, James K" sort="Hammitt, James K" uniqKey="Hammitt J" first="James K." last="Hammitt">James K. Hammitt</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132</idno>
<date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date>
<idno type="doi">10.2202/2152-2812.1059</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000774</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000774</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
<author>
<name sortKey="Robinson, Lisa A" sort="Robinson, Lisa A" uniqKey="Robinson L" first="Lisa A" last="Robinson">Lisa A. Robinson</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Independent Consultant</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author>
<name sortKey="Hammitt, James K" sort="Hammitt, James K" uniqKey="Hammitt J" first="James K." last="Hammitt">James K. Hammitt</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series>
<title level="j">Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis</title>
<idno type="eISSN">2152-2812</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2011-04-25">2011-04-25</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en">
<term>Address behavior</term>
<term>Adequate information</term>
<term>Alternative rates</term>
<term>Altruism</term>
<term>Altruistic</term>
<term>Altruistic motives</term>
<term>Altruistic values</term>
<term>Analysis framework</term>
<term>Analysis table</term>
<term>Analyst</term>
<term>Analysts need</term>
<term>Annual discount rate</term>
<term>Anomaly</term>
<term>Atmospheric administration</term>
<term>Attribute</term>
<term>Available data</term>
<term>Basic criteria</term>
<term>Behavioral</term>
<term>Behavioral anomalies</term>
<term>Behavioral economics</term>
<term>Behavioral economics research</term>
<term>Behavioral economists</term>
<term>Behavioral findings</term>
<term>Behavioral research</term>
<term>Behavioral researchers</term>
<term>Behavioral studies</term>
<term>Beneficial outcome</term>
<term>Benefit cost analysis</term>
<term>Benefit transfer</term>
<term>Benefit values</term>
<term>Benefitcost analysis</term>
<term>Best alternative</term>
<term>Best practices</term>
<term>Breakeven</term>
<term>Breakeven analysis</term>
<term>Budget constraints</term>
<term>Cambridge university press</term>
<term>Choices people</term>
<term>Contingent valuation</term>
<term>Correct measure</term>
<term>Critical review</term>
<term>Data limitations</term>
<term>Decisionmakers</term>
<term>Decisionmaking</term>
<term>Decisionmaking biases</term>
<term>Different contexts</term>
<term>Different policies</term>
<term>Different policy options</term>
<term>Different values</term>
<term>Discount factor</term>
<term>Discount rate</term>
<term>Discount rates</term>
<term>Discounting</term>
<term>Economic analysis</term>
<term>Economic efficiency</term>
<term>Economic literature</term>
<term>Economic theory</term>
<term>Economics</term>
<term>Empirical literature</term>
<term>Energy policy</term>
<term>Environmental</term>
<term>Environmental economics</term>
<term>Environmental policy</term>
<term>Environmental protection agency</term>
<term>Equity concerns</term>
<term>Existence values</term>
<term>Experimental results</term>
<term>Expert judgment</term>
<term>Exponential</term>
<term>Exponential discounting</term>
<term>Field studies</term>
<term>Full range</term>
<term>Functional form</term>
<term>Further research</term>
<term>Future behavior</term>
<term>Hammitt</term>
<term>Health policies</term>
<term>Health states</term>
<term>High rates</term>
<term>Holistic effect</term>
<term>Homeland security</term>
<term>Hyperbolic</term>
<term>Hyperbolic discounting</term>
<term>Hyperbolic functions</term>
<term>Implication</term>
<term>Incorporating</term>
<term>Individual choices</term>
<term>Individual decisions</term>
<term>Individual preferences</term>
<term>Intertemporal choice</term>
<term>Kahneman</term>
<term>Knetsch</term>
<term>Laboratory experiments</term>
<term>Laboratory settings</term>
<term>Laibson</term>
<term>Life expectancy</term>
<term>Loss aversion</term>
<term>Many sources</term>
<term>Many studies</term>
<term>Marginal utility</term>
<term>Market data</term>
<term>Market prices</term>
<term>Market rates</term>
<term>Medical interventions</term>
<term>Monetary terms</term>
<term>Monetary value</term>
<term>More detail</term>
<term>More information</term>
<term>More research</term>
<term>More work</term>
<term>Mortality risk</term>
<term>Mortality risk reductions</term>
<term>Mortality risks</term>
<term>National center</term>
<term>National oceanic</term>
<term>Neoclassical</term>
<term>Neoclassical economics</term>
<term>Neoclassical model</term>
<term>Nonmarket</term>
<term>Nonmarket benefits</term>
<term>Nonmarket goods</term>
<term>Nonmarket outcome</term>
<term>Nonmarket outcomes</term>
<term>Nonmarket valuation</term>
<term>Nonmarket valuation studies</term>
<term>Nonquantified effects</term>
<term>Normative</term>
<term>Normative preferences</term>
<term>Numerous studies</term>
<term>Opportunity costs</term>
<term>Option</term>
<term>Other cases</term>
<term>Other contexts</term>
<term>Other factors</term>
<term>Other goods</term>
<term>Other types</term>
<term>Other uncertainties</term>
<term>Other words</term>
<term>Palgrave dictionary</term>
<term>Palgrave macmillan</term>
<term>Particular context</term>
<term>Particular outcome</term>
<term>Paternalistic</term>
<term>Paternalistic altruism</term>
<term>Percent rate</term>
<term>Physical attributes</term>
<term>Physical impacts</term>
<term>Policy analysis</term>
<term>Policy analysts</term>
<term>Policy decisions</term>
<term>Policy option</term>
<term>Policy options</term>
<term>Political economy</term>
<term>Positional concerns</term>
<term>Possible decisionmaking bias</term>
<term>Potential effects</term>
<term>Practical application</term>
<term>Preference</term>
<term>Preference anomalies</term>
<term>Preference elicitation</term>
<term>Preference studies</term>
<term>Present status</term>
<term>Present value</term>
<term>Pretax rate</term>
<term>Primary research</term>
<term>Princeton university press</term>
<term>Private consumption</term>
<term>Private goods</term>
<term>Private preferences</term>
<term>Probabilistic</term>
<term>Probabilistic analysis</term>
<term>Property right</term>
<term>Prospect theory</term>
<term>Prototypical policy analyst</term>
<term>Psychological attributes</term>
<term>Psychological factors</term>
<term>Psychological responses</term>
<term>Public economics</term>
<term>Public goods</term>
<term>Public policy</term>
<term>Public programs</term>
<term>Pure time preferences</term>
<term>Qualitative discussion</term>
<term>Quantitative estimates</term>
<term>Quarterly journal</term>
<term>Real rates</term>
<term>Real resource costs</term>
<term>Real resource expenditures</term>
<term>Recent review</term>
<term>Reciprocity models</term>
<term>Reference point</term>
<term>Reference state</term>
<term>Regulatory analysis</term>
<term>Relative position</term>
<term>Research base</term>
<term>Research challenges</term>
<term>Researcher</term>
<term>Resource</term>
<term>Resource economics</term>
<term>Risk analysis</term>
<term>Risk change</term>
<term>Risk changes</term>
<term>Risk characteristics</term>
<term>Risk reduction</term>
<term>Risk reductions</term>
<term>Same outcome</term>
<term>Same rate</term>
<term>Second edition</term>
<term>Seminal work</term>
<term>Sensitivity analysis</term>
<term>Several implications</term>
<term>Several reasons</term>
<term>Several scholars</term>
<term>Shogren</term>
<term>Significant implications</term>
<term>Similar issues</term>
<term>Simple decision rules</term>
<term>Simplest form</term>
<term>Simplified overview</term>
<term>Simplified version</term>
<term>Social policies</term>
<term>Social preferences</term>
<term>Social pressures</term>
<term>Social programs</term>
<term>Social welfare</term>
<term>Special issue</term>
<term>Standard model</term>
<term>Standards lisa</term>
<term>Statedpreference research</term>
<term>Statistical life</term>
<term>Study population</term>
<term>Study quality</term>
<term>Substantial attention</term>
<term>Substantial synergy</term>
<term>Such analysis</term>
<term>Such studies</term>
<term>Sugden</term>
<term>Sunstein</term>
<term>Switch points</term>
<term>Technological progress</term>
<term>Thaler</term>
<term>Thoughtful preferences</term>
<term>Time period</term>
<term>Time preferences</term>
<term>Traditional approach</term>
<term>Traditional framework</term>
<term>Tversky</term>
<term>Undiscounted costs</term>
<term>Unpublished manuscript</term>
<term>Useful information</term>
<term>Useful insights</term>
<term>Utility function</term>
<term>Utility theory</term>
<term>Valuation</term>
<term>Valuation studies</term>
<term>Value nonmarket outcomes</term>
<term>Value risks</term>
<term>Viscusi</term>
<term>Visual aids</term>
<term>White paper</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex>
<corpusName>degruyter-journals</corpusName>
<keywords>
<teeft>
<json:string>behavioral economics</json:string>
<json:string>hammitt</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral research</json:string>
<json:string>social programs</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral</json:string>
<json:string>social preferences</json:string>
<json:string>discounting</json:string>
<json:string>kahneman</json:string>
<json:string>decisionmaking</json:string>
<json:string>resource economics</json:string>
<json:string>discount rate</json:string>
<json:string>normative preferences</json:string>
<json:string>environmental economics</json:string>
<json:string>market rates</json:string>
<json:string>neoclassical</json:string>
<json:string>altruistic</json:string>
<json:string>sugden</json:string>
<json:string>normative</json:string>
<json:string>preference</json:string>
<json:string>policy analysis</json:string>
<json:string>laibson</json:string>
<json:string>time preferences</json:string>
<json:string>hyperbolic discounting</json:string>
<json:string>thaler</json:string>
<json:string>knetsch</json:string>
<json:string>anomaly</json:string>
<json:string>exponential</json:string>
<json:string>private goods</json:string>
<json:string>valuation studies</json:string>
<json:string>tversky</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral economists</json:string>
<json:string>viscusi</json:string>
<json:string>psychological attributes</json:string>
<json:string>sunstein</json:string>
<json:string>time period</json:string>
<json:string>breakeven</json:string>
<json:string>discount rates</json:string>
<json:string>standard model</json:string>
<json:string>policy decisions</json:string>
<json:string>public goods</json:string>
<json:string>shogren</json:string>
<json:string>decisionmakers</json:string>
<json:string>altruism</json:string>
<json:string>useful information</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral anomalies</json:string>
<json:string>exponential discounting</json:string>
<json:string>reference state</json:string>
<json:string>statistical life</json:string>
<json:string>quarterly journal</json:string>
<json:string>relative position</json:string>
<json:string>hyperbolic</json:string>
<json:string>traditional framework</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket valuation</json:string>
<json:string>equity concerns</json:string>
<json:string>present value</json:string>
<json:string>different contexts</json:string>
<json:string>breakeven analysis</json:string>
<json:string>benefit transfer</json:string>
<json:string>economic efficiency</json:string>
<json:string>best practices</json:string>
<json:string>risk changes</json:string>
<json:string>prospect theory</json:string>
<json:string>individual preferences</json:string>
<json:string>thoughtful preferences</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket outcomes</json:string>
<json:string>risk change</json:string>
<json:string>other words</json:string>
<json:string>opportunity costs</json:string>
<json:string>princeton university press</json:string>
<json:string>individual choices</json:string>
<json:string>economic literature</json:string>
<json:string>monetary value</json:string>
<json:string>social welfare</json:string>
<json:string>neoclassical economics</json:string>
<json:string>physical attributes</json:string>
<json:string>statedpreference research</json:string>
<json:string>benefit values</json:string>
<json:string>mortality risks</json:string>
<json:string>psychological responses</json:string>
<json:string>mortality risk reductions</json:string>
<json:string>life expectancy</json:string>
<json:string>functional form</json:string>
<json:string>more work</json:string>
<json:string>policy analysts</json:string>
<json:string>reference point</json:string>
<json:string>alternative rates</json:string>
<json:string>individual decisions</json:string>
<json:string>utility theory</json:string>
<json:string>economics</json:string>
<json:string>attribute</json:string>
<json:string>probabilistic</json:string>
<json:string>paternalistic</json:string>
<json:string>incorporating</json:string>
<json:string>marginal utility</json:string>
<json:string>simplified version</json:string>
<json:string>positional concerns</json:string>
<json:string>discount factor</json:string>
<json:string>preference anomalies</json:string>
<json:string>altruistic motives</json:string>
<json:string>laboratory experiments</json:string>
<json:string>cambridge university press</json:string>
<json:string>analysts need</json:string>
<json:string>other contexts</json:string>
<json:string>homeland security</json:string>
<json:string>technological progress</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket valuation studies</json:string>
<json:string>prototypical policy analyst</json:string>
<json:string>full range</json:string>
<json:string>regulatory analysis</json:string>
<json:string>policy options</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket goods</json:string>
<json:string>numerous studies</json:string>
<json:string>environmental protection agency</json:string>
<json:string>such studies</json:string>
<json:string>mortality risk</json:string>
<json:string>several scholars</json:string>
<json:string>intertemporal choice</json:string>
<json:string>field studies</json:string>
<json:string>risk reduction</json:string>
<json:string>economic theory</json:string>
<json:string>further research</json:string>
<json:string>public programs</json:string>
<json:string>simplest form</json:string>
<json:string>paternalistic altruism</json:string>
<json:string>sensitivity analysis</json:string>
<json:string>market data</json:string>
<json:string>market prices</json:string>
<json:string>risk analysis</json:string>
<json:string>second edition</json:string>
<json:string>undiscounted costs</json:string>
<json:string>more detail</json:string>
<json:string>risk reductions</json:string>
<json:string>loss aversion</json:string>
<json:string>environmental policy</json:string>
<json:string>researcher</json:string>
<json:string>valuation</json:string>
<json:string>environmental</json:string>
<json:string>analyst</json:string>
<json:string>implication</json:string>
<json:string>switch points</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral studies</json:string>
<json:string>beneficial outcome</json:string>
<json:string>public economics</json:string>
<json:string>special issue</json:string>
<json:string>recent review</json:string>
<json:string>visual aids</json:string>
<json:string>many studies</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral findings</json:string>
<json:string>health states</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket benefits</json:string>
<json:string>health policies</json:string>
<json:string>medical interventions</json:string>
<json:string>significant implications</json:string>
<json:string>same outcome</json:string>
<json:string>value risks</json:string>
<json:string>budget constraints</json:string>
<json:string>holistic effect</json:string>
<json:string>expert judgment</json:string>
<json:string>particular context</json:string>
<json:string>basic criteria</json:string>
<json:string>primary research</json:string>
<json:string>quantitative estimates</json:string>
<json:string>potential effects</json:string>
<json:string>probabilistic analysis</json:string>
<json:string>hyperbolic functions</json:string>
<json:string>research base</json:string>
<json:string>data limitations</json:string>
<json:string>best alternative</json:string>
<json:string>energy policy</json:string>
<json:string>pure time preferences</json:string>
<json:string>other types</json:string>
<json:string>physical impacts</json:string>
<json:string>same rate</json:string>
<json:string>pretax rate</json:string>
<json:string>percent rate</json:string>
<json:string>available data</json:string>
<json:string>private consumption</json:string>
<json:string>other cases</json:string>
<json:string>real resource expenditures</json:string>
<json:string>traditional approach</json:string>
<json:string>value nonmarket outcomes</json:string>
<json:string>future behavior</json:string>
<json:string>real rates</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral economics research</json:string>
<json:string>laboratory settings</json:string>
<json:string>economic analysis</json:string>
<json:string>annual discount rate</json:string>
<json:string>high rates</json:string>
<json:string>other factors</json:string>
<json:string>behavioral researchers</json:string>
<json:string>nonquantified effects</json:string>
<json:string>real resource costs</json:string>
<json:string>social policies</json:string>
<json:string>more information</json:string>
<json:string>adequate information</json:string>
<json:string>different policy options</json:string>
<json:string>more research</json:string>
<json:string>empirical literature</json:string>
<json:string>simplified overview</json:string>
<json:string>different policies</json:string>
<json:string>useful insights</json:string>
<json:string>existence values</json:string>
<json:string>simple decision rules</json:string>
<json:string>substantial attention</json:string>
<json:string>neoclassical model</json:string>
<json:string>altruistic values</json:string>
<json:string>analysis framework</json:string>
<json:string>particular outcome</json:string>
<json:string>seminal work</json:string>
<json:string>similar issues</json:string>
<json:string>reciprocity models</json:string>
<json:string>experimental results</json:string>
<json:string>social pressures</json:string>
<json:string>address behavior</json:string>
<json:string>other goods</json:string>
<json:string>practical application</json:string>
<json:string>research challenges</json:string>
<json:string>private preferences</json:string>
<json:string>several reasons</json:string>
<json:string>psychological factors</json:string>
<json:string>national oceanic</json:string>
<json:string>atmospheric administration</json:string>
<json:string>utility function</json:string>
<json:string>monetary terms</json:string>
<json:string>preference studies</json:string>
<json:string>choices people</json:string>
<json:string>decisionmaking biases</json:string>
<json:string>benefitcost analysis</json:string>
<json:string>preference elicitation</json:string>
<json:string>nonmarket outcome</json:string>
<json:string>substantial synergy</json:string>
<json:string>policy option</json:string>
<json:string>study quality</json:string>
<json:string>possible decisionmaking bias</json:string>
<json:string>other uncertainties</json:string>
<json:string>study population</json:string>
<json:string>such analysis</json:string>
<json:string>qualitative discussion</json:string>
<json:string>many sources</json:string>
<json:string>benefit cost analysis</json:string>
<json:string>palgrave dictionary</json:string>
<json:string>analysis table</json:string>
<json:string>palgrave macmillan</json:string>
<json:string>standards lisa</json:string>
<json:string>different values</json:string>
<json:string>property right</json:string>
<json:string>contingent valuation</json:string>
<json:string>present status</json:string>
<json:string>several implications</json:string>
<json:string>white paper</json:string>
<json:string>national center</json:string>
<json:string>risk characteristics</json:string>
<json:string>critical review</json:string>
<json:string>political economy</json:string>
<json:string>unpublished manuscript</json:string>
<json:string>public policy</json:string>
<json:string>correct measure</json:string>
<json:string>resource</json:string>
<json:string>option</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author>
<json:item>
<name>Lisa A Robinson</name>
<affiliations>
<json:string>Independent Consultant</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<name>James K. Hammitt</name>
<affiliations>
<json:string>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>behavioral economics</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>benefit-cost analysis</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>nonmarket valuation</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>discounting</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>social preferences</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<articleId>
<json:string>2152-2812.1059</json:string>
</articleId>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/QT4-BKRDBNLZ-2</arkIstex>
<language>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators>
<refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>303</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>2239</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>5</keywordCount>
<score>10</score>
<pdfWordCount>17895</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>118588</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>51</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
<genre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host>
<title>Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis</title>
<language>
<json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<eissn>
<json:string>2152-2812</json:string>
</eissn>
<publisherId>
<json:string>jbca</json:string>
</publisherId>
<volume>2</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<genre>
<json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<subject>
<json:item>
<value>Behavioral</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<value>Environment</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<value>Health</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<value>Law and regulation</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<value>Other social policy</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
</host>
<namedEntities>
<unitex>
<date>
<json:string>2009</json:string>
<json:string>2011</json:string>
<json:string>2011-04-25</json:string>
<json:string>2010</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName>
<json:string>American Economic Association Annual Meeting</json:string>
<json:string>Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting</json:string>
<json:string>BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH ON SOCIAL PREFERENCES</json:string>
<json:string>Foundation</json:string>
<json:string>European Research Council</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName>
<json:string>Martin Weitzman</json:string>
<json:string>Brigitte Madrian</json:string>
<json:string>Richard O. Zerbe</json:string>
<json:string>Kerry Smith</json:string>
<json:string>Christopher Robert</json:string>
<json:string>James K. Hammitt</json:string>
<json:string>Hammitt</json:string>
<json:string>Nancy Garland</json:string>
<json:string>Blake Davis</json:string>
<json:string>Tyler Scott</json:string>
<json:string>Catherine T. MacArthur</json:string>
<json:string>Daniel Herz-Roiphe</json:string>
<json:string>Richard Zerbe</json:string>
<json:string>Lisa A. Robinson</json:string>
</persName>
<placeName></placeName>
<ref_url></ref_url>
<ref_bibl></ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark>
<json:string>ark:/67375/QT4-BKRDBNLZ-2</json:string>
</ark>
<categories>
<inist>
<json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string>
</inist>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2011</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate>
<doi>
<json:string>10.2202/2152-2812.1059</json:string>
</doi>
<id>5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext>
<json:item>
<extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/fulltext/tei">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
<respStmt>
<resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp>
<name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">De Gruyter</publisher>
<availability>
<licence>
<p>©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</p>
</licence>
<p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-B4QPMMZB-D">degruyter-journals</p>
</availability>
<date>2011-04-25</date>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt>
<note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note>
<note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct type="inbook">
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000">
<persName>
<forename type="first">Lisa A</forename>
<surname>Robinson</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Independent Consultant</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0001">
<persName>
<forename type="first">James K.</forename>
<surname>Hammitt</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/QT4-BKRDBNLZ-2</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.2202/2152-2812.1059</idno>
<idno type="article-id">2152-2812.1059</idno>
<idno type="pdf">jbca.2011.2.2.1059.pdf</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr>
<title level="j">Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis</title>
<idno type="eISSN">2152-2812</idno>
<idno type="publisher-id">jbca</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2011-04-25"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>
<date>2011-04-25</date>
</creation>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract xml:lang="en">
<p>As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="keyword">
<list>
<head>Keywords</head>
<item>
<term>behavioral economics</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>benefit-cost analysis</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>nonmarket valuation</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>discounting</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>social preferences</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="Journal Subject">
<list>
<head></head>
<item>
<term>Behavioral</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>Environment</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>Health</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>Law and regulation</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>Other social policy</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change when="2011-04-25">Created</change>
<change when="2011-04-25">Published</change>
<change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-10-5">References added</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item>
<extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata>
<istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus degruyter-journals" wicri:toSee="no header">
<istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//Atypon//DTD Atypon Systems Journal Archiving and Interchange NLM DTD v3.0.2 20101108//EN" URI="atypon_archive-interchange-dtd-3.0.2/atypon-archivearticle3.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="EN">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jbca</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2152-2812</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>De Gruyter</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">2152-2812.1059</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2202/2152-2812.1059</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Principles and Standards</subject>
</subj-group>
<subj-group>
<subject>Behavioral</subject>
<subject>Environment</subject>
<subject>Health</subject>
<subject>Law and regulation</subject>
<subject>Other social policy</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Robinson</surname>
<given-names>Lisa A</given-names>
</name>
<aff id="a1">
<italic>Independent Consultant</italic>
</aff>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Hammitt</surname>
<given-names>James K.</given-names>
</name>
<aff id="a2">
<italic>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</italic>
</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>25</day>
<month>4</month>
<year>2011</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>2</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2011</copyright-year>
</permissions>
<related-article related-article-type="pdf" xlink:href="jbca.2011.2.2.1059.pdf"></related-article>
<abstract>
<p>As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<title>Keywords</title>
<kwd>behavioral economics</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>benefit-cost analysis</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>nonmarket valuation</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>discounting</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>social preferences</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<counts>
<page-count count="51"></page-count>
</counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6">
<titleInfo lang="en">
<title>Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA">
<title>Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lisa A</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Robinson</namePart>
<affiliation>Independent Consultant</affiliation>
<role>
<roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">James K.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hammitt</namePart>
<affiliation>Harvard University and Toulouse School of Economics</affiliation>
<role>
<roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre>
<originInfo>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-04-25</dateIssued>
<dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2011-04-25</dateCreated>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<abstract lang="en">As traditionally conducted, benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their welfare. Its conduct is evolving to reflect recent work in behavioral economics, which explores the psychological aspects of decisionmaking. We consider several implications for analyses of social programs, focusing largely on economic valuation. First, benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Behavioral research emphasizes the need to recognize that these values are affected by psychological as well as physical attributes. Second, benefit-cost analysis traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences, while behavioral research suggests that individuals’ discounting may be hyperbolic. While the appropriate rates and functional form are uncertain, market rates best represent the opportunity costs associated with diverting funds to support a particular social policy or program. Such rates reflect the intersection between technological progress and individual preferences, regardless of whether these preferences fit the standard economic model or a behavioral alternative. Third, behavioral research emphasizes the need to consider the influence of other-regarding preferences on valuation. In addition to acting altruistically, individuals may act reciprocally to reward or punish others, or use the status of others as the baseline against which to assess their own well-being. Fourth, behavioral economics identifies factors that can help researchers develop valuation studies that provide well-informed, thoughtful preferences. Finally, while behavioral research has led some to argue for a more paternalistic approach to policy analysis, an alternative is to continue to focus on describing the preferences of those affected by the policy options while working to ensure that these preferences are based on knowledge and careful reflection. Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.</abstract>
<subject>
<genre>Keywords</genre>
<topic>behavioral economics</topic>
<topic>benefit-cost analysis</topic>
<topic>nonmarket valuation</topic>
<topic>discounting</topic>
<topic>social preferences</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre>
<originInfo></originInfo>
<subject>
<topic>Behavioral</topic>
<topic>Environment</topic>
<topic>Health</topic>
<topic>Law and regulation</topic>
<topic>Other social policy</topic>
</subject>
<identifier type="eISSN">2152-2812</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">jbca</identifier>
<part>
<date>2011</date>
<detail type="volume">
<caption>vol.</caption>
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<caption>no.</caption>
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages">
<total>51</total>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/QT4-BKRDBNLZ-2</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.2202/2152-2812.1059</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">2152-2812.1059</identifier>
<identifier type="pdf">jbca.2011.2.2.1059.pdf</identifier>
<accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</accessCondition>
<recordInfo>
<recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-B4QPMMZB-D">degruyter-journals</recordContentSource>
<recordOrigin>©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</recordOrigin>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
<json:item>
<extension>json</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/json</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132/metadata/json</uri>
</json:item>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/BernheimV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000774 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000774 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Psychologie
   |area=    BernheimV1
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:5F128CDE944790CA46E4EBC97B4F667E6614B132
   |texte=   Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards
}}

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33.
Data generation: Mon Mar 5 17:33:33 2018. Site generation: Thu Apr 29 15:49:51 2021