成本效益分析与社会福利函数

M. Adler
{"title":"成本效益分析与社会福利函数","authors":"M. Adler","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793991.013.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter describes and compares the two most important policy-analysis methodologies in economics: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the social-welfare-function (SWF) framework. Both approaches are consequentialist and welfarist; both are typically combined with a preference-based view of well-being. Despite these similarities, the two methodologies differ in significant ways. CBA translates well-being impacts into monetary equivalents, and ranks outcomes according to the sum total of monetary equivalents. By contrast, the SWF framework relies upon an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Each possible outcome is mapped onto a list (vector) of these well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; the ranking of outcomes, then, is driven by some rule (the SWF) for ranking these well-being vectors. The utilitarian SWF and the prioritarian family of SWFs (each corresponding to well-developed positions in moral philosophy) are especially plausible. The case for using CBA rather than one of these SWFs is weak—or so the chapter argues.","PeriodicalId":135734,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics","volume":"117 15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare Functions\",\"authors\":\"M. Adler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793991.013.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter describes and compares the two most important policy-analysis methodologies in economics: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the social-welfare-function (SWF) framework. Both approaches are consequentialist and welfarist; both are typically combined with a preference-based view of well-being. Despite these similarities, the two methodologies differ in significant ways. CBA translates well-being impacts into monetary equivalents, and ranks outcomes according to the sum total of monetary equivalents. By contrast, the SWF framework relies upon an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Each possible outcome is mapped onto a list (vector) of these well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; the ranking of outcomes, then, is driven by some rule (the SWF) for ranking these well-being vectors. The utilitarian SWF and the prioritarian family of SWFs (each corresponding to well-developed positions in moral philosophy) are especially plausible. The case for using CBA rather than one of these SWFs is weak—or so the chapter argues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":135734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics\",\"volume\":\"117 15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793991.013.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198793991.013.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本章描述并比较了经济学中最重要的两种政策分析方法:成本效益分析(CBA)和社会福利函数(SWF)框架。这两种方法都是结果主义和福利主义;这两者通常都与基于偏好的幸福感相结合。尽管有这些相似之处,但这两种方法在许多方面存在重大差异。CBA将幸福感影响转化为货币等价物,并根据货币等价物的总和对结果进行排名。相比之下,主权财富基金框架依赖于人与人之间可比较的福祉衡量标准。每一种可能的结果都被映射到这些幸福数字的列表(向量)上,每个人对应一个幸福数字;因此,结果的排名是由对这些幸福向量进行排名的一些规则(SWF)驱动的。功利主义的主权财富基金和优先主义的主权财富基金家族(每一个都对应于道德哲学中发达的立场)尤其合理。使用CBA而不是这些主权财富基金之一的理由很弱——至少本章是这样认为的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare Functions
This chapter describes and compares the two most important policy-analysis methodologies in economics: cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and the social-welfare-function (SWF) framework. Both approaches are consequentialist and welfarist; both are typically combined with a preference-based view of well-being. Despite these similarities, the two methodologies differ in significant ways. CBA translates well-being impacts into monetary equivalents, and ranks outcomes according to the sum total of monetary equivalents. By contrast, the SWF framework relies upon an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Each possible outcome is mapped onto a list (vector) of these well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; the ranking of outcomes, then, is driven by some rule (the SWF) for ranking these well-being vectors. The utilitarian SWF and the prioritarian family of SWFs (each corresponding to well-developed positions in moral philosophy) are especially plausible. The case for using CBA rather than one of these SWFs is weak—or so the chapter argues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信