有效性分析与价值不可通约性。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Anders Herlitz
{"title":"有效性分析与价值不可通约性。","authors":"Anders Herlitz","doi":"10.1186/s12962-025-00624-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper argues that in many contexts where effectiveness analysis such as benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis is used, we have good reason to think that some benefits or costs are incommensurable in value such that neither can be determined to be better than the other, although they cannot be determined to be equally good either. Two responses to such value incommensurability are outlined: abandoning conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and replacing one-dimensional measures with multi-dimensional measures or sticking to conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and accepting that whatever valuation one comes up with, it will fail to reflect the actual values and value relations between benefits and costs. Both responses are argued to be problematic.</p>","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":"23 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12020285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness analysis and value incommensurability.\",\"authors\":\"Anders Herlitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12962-025-00624-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper argues that in many contexts where effectiveness analysis such as benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis is used, we have good reason to think that some benefits or costs are incommensurable in value such that neither can be determined to be better than the other, although they cannot be determined to be equally good either. Two responses to such value incommensurability are outlined: abandoning conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and replacing one-dimensional measures with multi-dimensional measures or sticking to conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and accepting that whatever valuation one comes up with, it will fail to reflect the actual values and value relations between benefits and costs. Both responses are argued to be problematic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12020285/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-025-00624-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-025-00624-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,在许多使用效益-成本分析和成本-效益分析等有效性分析的情况下,我们有充分的理由认为一些效益或成本在价值上是不可通约的,因此不能确定两者都比另一方好,尽管它们也不能确定同样好。针对这种价值不可通约性,本文提出了两种应对措施:放弃传统的效益和成本衡量方式,以多维度的衡量方式取代一维的衡量方式;或者坚持传统的效益和成本衡量方式,接受无论给出什么样的估值,都不能反映效益和成本之间的实际价值和价值关系。这两种回答都被认为是有问题的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness analysis and value incommensurability.

This paper argues that in many contexts where effectiveness analysis such as benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis is used, we have good reason to think that some benefits or costs are incommensurable in value such that neither can be determined to be better than the other, although they cannot be determined to be equally good either. Two responses to such value incommensurability are outlined: abandoning conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and replacing one-dimensional measures with multi-dimensional measures or sticking to conventional ways of measuring benefits and costs and accepting that whatever valuation one comes up with, it will fail to reflect the actual values and value relations between benefits and costs. Both responses are argued to be problematic.

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
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.
×
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