144
R.K. Turner
Economic analysis would be restricted to cost -effectiveness analysis, designed to
identify the least costly ways of implementing and enforcing the environmental standards. Economic analysis would not be deployed to explicitly test the worthwhileness of
the standards themselves. However, once the standards had been set (by whatever means)
implicitly relative price/valuations would also have been determined.
13.2.4
Abandonment of CBA Framework
In the abandonment of CBA framework approach (the deep Ecology approach), the
primary policy objective becomes maximum nature conservation. Nature i~ seen as
possessing inherent value and species other than humans would be viewed as possessing interests and rights. Zero-economic growth strategies and minimum resource-take
economic systems (small-scale, decentralised, based on organic agriculture and renewable energy sources) would be the order of the day. There would be no role for benefits
estimation and economic analysis, in their conventional mode, in this approach.
13.2.5
Further Issues of CBA Framework
Equally flawed is the world view which calls for the complete abandonment of CBA in
favour of a set of ill-defined alternative assessment frameworks, e.g. energy analysis,
life cycle analysis, bio-ethical imperatives, etc. Economic realities are somehow pushed
aside and spurious claims to the moral 'high ground' often substituted in the name of
environmental imperatives.
The middle ground offers more prospects for both constructive analytical debates
and better enabling methods and techniques leading to improved resource assessment
and social policy making. Debate is required because a number of difficult issues and
questions remain to be resolved. The acceptance of sustainable development as a policy
objective will serve to heighten the tensions between the polar extreme camps, while
simultaneously offering an important policy context for other analysts to pursue a joint
and interdisciplinary research agenda (see Sect. 13.2.1-13.2.4).
Future progress contributing to the acl1ievement of a socially acceptable 'sustainability
balance' [trading off efficiency, equity and precautionary principles (E: E: P) 1 is required in the following areas:
• Defining the boundaries of the domains for the individualistic market-based calculus and economic welfare value judgements and non-market collectivist values and
calculus
• Further refinement of monetary valuation methods such as contingent valuation
• Development/refinement of non-market assessment methods and techniques
• Formulation of an integrated set of multi-criteria heuristic analytical aids which
can provide for more participatory decision-making
This chapter focuses on the resource assessment issues and in particular on the
evaluation of the social costs and benefits surrounding large-scale capital investment
projects.
R.K. Turner
Economic analysis would be restricted to cost -effectiveness analysis, designed to
identify the least costly ways of implementing and enforcing the environmental standards. Economic analysis would not be deployed to explicitly test the worthwhileness of
the standards themselves. However, once the standards had been set (by whatever means)
implicitly relative price/valuations would also have been determined.
13.2.4
Abandonment of CBA Framework
In the abandonment of CBA framework approach (the deep Ecology approach), the
primary policy objective becomes maximum nature conservation. Nature i~ seen as
possessing inherent value and species other than humans would be viewed as possessing interests and rights. Zero-economic growth strategies and minimum resource-take
economic systems (small-scale, decentralised, based on organic agriculture and renewable energy sources) would be the order of the day. There would be no role for benefits
estimation and economic analysis, in their conventional mode, in this approach.
13.2.5
Further Issues of CBA Framework
Equally flawed is the world view which calls for the complete abandonment of CBA in
favour of a set of ill-defined alternative assessment frameworks, e.g. energy analysis,
life cycle analysis, bio-ethical imperatives, etc. Economic realities are somehow pushed
aside and spurious claims to the moral 'high ground' often substituted in the name of
environmental imperatives.
The middle ground offers more prospects for both constructive analytical debates
and better enabling methods and techniques leading to improved resource assessment
and social policy making. Debate is required because a number of difficult issues and
questions remain to be resolved. The acceptance of sustainable development as a policy
objective will serve to heighten the tensions between the polar extreme camps, while
simultaneously offering an important policy context for other analysts to pursue a joint
and interdisciplinary research agenda (see Sect. 13.2.1-13.2.4).
Future progress contributing to the acl1ievement of a socially acceptable 'sustainability
balance' [trading off efficiency, equity and precautionary principles (E: E: P) 1 is required in the following areas:
• Defining the boundaries of the domains for the individualistic market-based calculus and economic welfare value judgements and non-market collectivist values and
calculus
• Further refinement of monetary valuation methods such as contingent valuation
• Development/refinement of non-market assessment methods and techniques
• Formulation of an integrated set of multi-criteria heuristic analytical aids which
can provide for more participatory decision-making
This chapter focuses on the resource assessment issues and in particular on the
evaluation of the social costs and benefits surrounding large-scale capital investment
projects.