Interesting to hear that any diciplines but economists had ANY opinions on CBA (or even heard of it), much less that they were generally negative. The "part of the discourse" point is just the standard Neo-Social Democratic POV separating efficiency analysis from distributional analysis.
Thank you for your kind shout out. (I almost tagged you in today's post on the strategic use of overlapping consensus.)
Your defense of CBA is not far from Heath's (and he engages with some of the criticisms, too--his responses to the first two criticisms are very nicely developed in him). I think Schmidtz is actually more willing to acknowledge the limitations of CBA in practice than Heath is.
Now, let me get to the nub, that there is no alternative generates, in fact, an obligation to be quite transparent about the limitations in use, and to emphasize these to the audience of practitioners. And also to sponsor work on how to remedy the structural defects.
Interesting to hear that any diciplines but economists had ANY opinions on CBA (or even heard of it), much less that they were generally negative. The "part of the discourse" point is just the standard Neo-Social Democratic POV separating efficiency analysis from distributional analysis.
Thank you for your kind shout out. (I almost tagged you in today's post on the strategic use of overlapping consensus.)
Your defense of CBA is not far from Heath's (and he engages with some of the criticisms, too--his responses to the first two criticisms are very nicely developed in him). I think Schmidtz is actually more willing to acknowledge the limitations of CBA in practice than Heath is.
Now, let me get to the nub, that there is no alternative generates, in fact, an obligation to be quite transparent about the limitations in use, and to emphasize these to the audience of practitioners. And also to sponsor work on how to remedy the structural defects.