The Potential Pareto criterion, or Kaldor-Hicks standard, presumes that costs are not fully compensated. Yet, uncompensated costs can incentivize costly political activity and create uncertainty about political outcomes. These consequences are not reckoned in the standard benefit-cost analysis. This study models political costs and uncertainty as a function of project parameters and political-institutional characteristics. The economic consequences of political behavior are then incorporated into an adjusted project evaluation standard. This standard assures that the project’s conventionally measured net benefits are sufficient to cover political costs and uncertainty about the decision-making outcome.

Editor-in-Chief: Farrow, Scott
3 Issues per year
Issues
Volume 4 (2013)
Volume 3 (2012)
Volume 2 (2011)
Volume 1 (2010)
Most Downloaded Articles
- Appropriate Discounting for Benefit-Cost Analysis by Burgess, David F and Zerbe, Richard O
- Measuring The Social Opportunity Cost of Labor In Mexico by Guillermo-Peon, Sylvia B. and Harberger, Arnold C.
- Benefit-Cost Analysis for Drinking Water Standards: Efficiency, Equity, and Affordability Considerations in Small Communities by Raucher, Robert S./ Rubin, Scott J/ Crawford-Brown, Douglas and Lawson, Megan M.
- A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Private and Semi-Private Hospital Rooms by Boardman, Anthony E and Forbes, Diane
- The Normative Implications of Political Decision-Making for Benefit-Cost Analysis by Krutilla, Kerry and Alexeev, Alexander
The Normative Implications of Political Decision-Making for Benefit-Cost Analysis
Kerry Krutilla / Alexander Alexeev
1Indiana University, Bloomington
1Indiana University, Bloomington
Citation Information: Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis. Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 2152-2812, DOI: 10.1515/2152-2812.1112, May 2012
Publication History:
- Published Online:
- 2012-05-08
Keywords: benefit cost analysis; political costs; transaction costs; political economy


















Comments (0)