Advertisement

Multi-criteria Evaluation in Public Economics and Policy

  • Giuseppe MundaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)

Abstract

Public administrations need to assess policy options before their implementation; often there is some uncertainty if cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) should be used. This Chapter aims at showing that MCE may help economics at overcoming some of its current difficulties in the empirical assessment of public policy options; thus MCE has to be placed in the future of welfare economics with no doubt. To corroborate this conclusion, a structured comparison of the main distinguishing features of CBA and MCE is carried out according to the following ten comparison criteria: efficiency, fairness, democratic basis, effectiveness, problem structuring, alternatives taken into account, policy consequences, comprehensiveness, transparency and mathematical aggregation rule.

Keywords

Multiple criteria analysis Public policy Cost-benefit analysis ex-ante impact assessment Welfare economics 

JEL Classification

A12 C44 D04 D61 R58 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been developed in the context of the activities of the Competence Centre on Modelling. Comments by Leen Hordijk are gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

References

  1. Agasisti, T., Hippe, R., & Munda, G. (2017). Efficiency of investment in compulsory education: Empirical analyses in Europe; EUR 28607 EN. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union; JRC106678.  https://doi.org/10.2760/975369.
  2. Aldred, J. (2009). Ethics and climate change cost-benefit analysis: Stern and after. New Political Economy, 14(4), 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2d ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J., & Raynaud, H. (1986). Social choice and multicriterion decision making. Cambridge: M.I.T Press.Google Scholar
  5. Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J. M., & Boulaire, C. (1998). A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, M. L., Hobbs, B. F., & Ellis, H. (2003). The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: Implications for IA practitioners. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37(4), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bojo, J., Maler, K. G., & Unemo, L. (1990). Environment and development: An economic approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgenmeier, B. (1994). The misperception of Walras. American Economic Review, 84(1), 342–352.Google Scholar
  9. Cerreta, M., & De Toro, P. (2010). Integrated spatial assessment for a creative decision-making process: A combined methodological approach to strategic environmental assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(1–2), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copp, D. (1987). The justice and rationale of cost-benefit analysis. Theory and Decision, 23(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dasgupta, P. (2001). Valuing objects and evaluating policies in imperfect economies. Economic Journal, 111(May), C1–C29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emrouznejad, A., & Yang, G.-L. (2018). A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 61, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (Eds.) (2016). Multiple-criteria decision analysis. State of the art surveys. Springer International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Frame, B., & O’Connor, M. (2011). Integrating valuation and deliberation: The purpose of sustainability assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey, B. S. (1986). Economists favour the price system who else does? Kyklos, 39(4), 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics (pp. 137–152). New York: Columbia.Google Scholar
  17. Fusco Girard, L. (1986). The complex social value of the architectural heritage. Icomos Information, 1, 19–22.Google Scholar
  18. Gamboa, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile. Ecological Economics, 59(1), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gamboa, G., & Munda, G. (2007). The problem of wind-park location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework. Energy Policy, 35(3), 1564–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garmendia, E., & Stagl, S. (2010). Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1712–1722.Google Scholar
  21. Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2009). Mismeasuring the value of statistical life. Journal of Economic Methodology, 16(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guimarães-Pereira, A., Guedes, S., & Tognetti, S. (Eds.). (2006). Interfaces between science and society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Hammitt, J. K. (2013). Positive versus normative justifications for benefit-cost analysis: Implications for interpretation and policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansen, F. (2011). The Stern review and its critics: Economics at work in an interdisciplinary setting. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(3), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hicks, J. R. (1939). The foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal, 49(196), 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: Methods and software. Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare comparison of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal, 49(195), 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Laffont, J. J. (2000). Incentives and political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lerche, N., Wilkens, I., Schmehl, M., Eigner-Thiel, S., & Geldermann, J. (2017). Using methods of multi-criteria decision making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. ISSN 0038-0121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.08.002.
  32. Lo, A. Y., & Spash, C. L. (2013). Deliberative monetary valuation: In search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(4), 768–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, 24, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26, 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mishan, E. J. (1971). Cost-benefit analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. Monterroso, I., Binimelis, R., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2011). New methods for the analysis of invasion processes: Multi-criteria evaluation of the invasion of Hydrilla verticillata in Guatemala. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 494–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munda G., Nijkamp P., & Rietveld P. (1995). Monetary and non-monetary evaluation methods in sustainable development planning. Economie Appliquée, XLVIII(2), 145–162.Google Scholar
  38. Munda, G. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: Some methodological issues. Ecological Economics, 19(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munda, G. (2008). Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Heidelberg, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Munda, G. (2014). Economic democracy, political democracy and evaluation frameworks, BDC. Bollettino del Centro Calza Bini, 14(2), 267–284. Universita‘ degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.Google Scholar
  42. Munda, G. (2016). Beyond welfare economics: Some methodological issues. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Musgrave, A. (1981). Unreal assumptions in economic theory: The F-twist untwisted. Kyklos, 34, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Neill, J. (1993). Ecology, policy and politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. O’Neill, J. (2001). Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Özkaynak, B. (2008). Globalisation and local resistance: Alternative city developmental scenarios on capital’s global frontier-the case of Yalova, Turkey. Progress in Planning, 70(2), 45–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearce, D. W., & Nash, C. A. (1989). The social appraisal of projects. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  48. Poincaré, H. (1935). La valeur de la science. Flammarion.Google Scholar
  49. Roubens, M., & Vincke, P. H. (1985). Preference modelling. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sagoff, M. (1988). Some problems with environmental economics. Environmental Ethics, 10, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scolobig, A., Broto, V. C., & Zabala, A. (2008). Integrating multiple perspectives in social multicriteria evaluation of flood-mitigation alternatives: The case of Malborghetto-Valbruna. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(6), 1143–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In J. S. Latsis (Ed.), Methods and appraisal in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Soma, K., & Vatn, A. (2009). Local democracy implications for coastal zone management-A case study in southern Norway. Land Use Policy, 26(3), 755–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spash, C. L. (2008). Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Economics, 84(3), 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). New perspectives on public finance: Recent achievements and future challenges. Journal of Public Economics, 86, 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Straton, A. T., Jackson, S., Marinoni, O., Proctor, W., & Woodward, E. (2010). Exploring and evaluating scenarios for a river catchment in Northern Australia using scenario development, multi-criteria analysis and a deliberative process as a tool for water planning. Water Resources Management, 25(1), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vatn, A., & Bromley, D. W. (1994). Choices without prices without apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., De Baets, B., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(3), 394–402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Commission, Joint Research CentreUnit JRC.I.1 – Modelling, Indicators and Impact Evaluation, Competence Centre on ModellingIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations