Do cost-benefit analyses favour environmentalists?

dc.contributor.author	Brekke, Kjell Arne
dc.date.accessioned	2020-08-19T11:06:21Z
dc.date.available	2020-08-19T11:06:21Z
dc.date.issued	1993-02
dc.identifier.issn	0803-074X
dc.identifier.uri	https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2672984
dc.description.abstract	Money and environmental quality units are considered as unit for aggregating willingness to pay. For those with a high willingness to pay for environmental quality, the choice of money as aggregation unit is most favourable. Arguments for either choice of aggregation unit are discussed, and I argue that none of them is convincing, and that both choices are equally natural. Thus in the choice between two equally natural procedures, the conventional choice favours a particular group. On the other hand, with no "correct" choice we cannot conclude that the conventional method is "biased".	en_US
dc.language.iso	eng	en_US
dc.publisher	Statistisk sentralbyrå	en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Discussion Paper;No. 84
dc.rights	Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no	*
dc.title	Do cost-benefit analyses favour environmentalists?	en_US
dc.type	Working paper	en_US
dc.subject.nsi	VDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Økonomi: 210::Samfunnsøkonomi: 212	en_US
dc.source.pagenumber	26	en_US

Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal