Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost benefit analysis and the art of motorcycle maintenance

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Partially as the result of consumer and environmentalist pressure, proposals for large-scale government and private projects are increasingly coming under the scrutiny of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, risk assessment and related approaches. This paper presents a critical overview of such analyses. It discusses (a) their rationale; (b) their acceptability as guides to decision making; (c) the problems such analyses encounter; (d) how they may be misused; and (e) what steps are needed to increase their contribution to society. The discussion is illustrated with a variety of examples, drawn, in particular, from the evaluation of new technologies.

Whatever their flaws, such analyses appear to have a critical role in guiding social decision making. It is important, however, for both the analyst and the nonexpert consumer of such analyses to understand the errors to which they are prone in order to maintain a critical perspective. Indeed, the institutionalization of such criticism is essential.

Additional research is needed to clarify psychological (subjective) aspects of the analytic process in order to (a) reduce the errors and omissions made by analysts and (b) help policy makers and the public understand the results and the assumptions under which they were reached.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acton, J. (1973). “Evaluating public programs to save lives: The case of heart attacks.” Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, R-950-RC.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Physical Society (1975). “Report to the APS by the Study Group on Light Water Reactor Safety,”Reviews of Modern Physics 14, Supplement 1.

  • Atomic Energy Commission (1957). “The actual consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants, WASH-740.” Washington, D.C.: The Atomic Energy Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atomic Energy Commission (1974, 1975). “Reactor safety study: An assessment of accident risks in U.S. commercial power plants, WASH-1400.” Washington, D.C.: The Atomic Energy Commission, 1974-Draft; 1975-Final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bereano, P. C., Callen, J., Kellner, W. B., Olson, G. R., and Wengenroth, B. H. (1973). “A proposed methodology for assessing alternative technologies,”Technology Assessment 1: 179–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, J. and Cicchetti, C. (1973). “Some institutional and conceptual thoughts on the measurement of indirect and intangible benefits and costs,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boffey, P. M. (1975). “Nuclear war: Federation disputes Academy on how bad effects would be,”Science 190: 248–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boffey, P. M. (1976). “Sulfur pollution: Charges that EPA distorted the data are examined,”Science 192 352–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourne, A. J. (1971). “Reliability assessment of technology systems.” Chairman's address to the measurement and control section of the Northwestern center of the Institute of Electrical Engineers.

  • Bourne, A. J. (1973). “General results of an investigation into the reliability of high pressure die casting machines.” Culcheth, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Report SRS/GR/5.

  • Brown, R. V., Kahr, A. S., and Peterson, C. (1974).Decision Analysis for the Manager. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, I., Kates, R., and White, G. (i.p.).The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Business Week (1975a). How Browns Ferry skirted disaster. November 17, p. 105.

  • Business Week (1975b). Why atomic power dims today. November 17, pp. 98–106.

  • Carroll, J. D. (1971). “Participatory technology,”Science 171 647–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. J. (1974). “Pollution and public health: Taconite case poses major test,”Science 186 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. J. (1975a). “Alaskan gas: The feds umpire another confused pipeline debate,”Science 190 362–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. J. (1975b). “Icebergs and oil tankers: USOS glaciologists are concerned,”Science 190 641–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. J. (1975c). “Deception changed in presentation of SST study,”Science 190 861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L. J. (1976). “NEPA: Critics say promise unfulfilled,”Science 193 130–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS. (1975). “The American way of cancer.” October 15.

  • Coates, J. F. (1974). “Some methods and techniques for comprehensive impact assessment,”Technological Forecasting and Social Change 6 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, J. F. (1976). “The role of formal models in technology assessment,”Technological Forecasting and Social Change 8, in press.

  • Cohen, B. L. (1974). “Perspectives in the nuclear debate,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 30 (6): 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comey, D. D. (1975a). “How we almost lost Alabama,”Chicago Tribune, August 31, p. 2/1.

  • Comey, D. D. (1975b). “Do not go gently into that radiation zone,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 (11): 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Public Engineering Policy (1972).Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, R. C. (1972). “The why, where and how of broadened public participation in the administrative process,”Georgetown Law Journal 60 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, T. D. (1973). “Cost benefit analysis of cost benefit analysis,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danziger, S. and Wheeler, D. (1975). “The economics of crime-punishment or income redistribution,”Review of Social Economy 33 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, M. C. (1975). “Nuclear Energy: A second round of questions,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, E. E. (1975). “One-armed scientists?”Science 189 891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, P. B. and Watson, W. D. (1974). “The economics of enforcing air pollution controls,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuCharme, W. M. (1970). “A response bias explanation of conservative human inference,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 85 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, F. J. (1975). “The hidden cost of saying No!”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eames, A. R. (1966). “Reliability assessment of protective systems,”Nuclear Engineering March.

  • Echols, H. (1975). “Genetic manipulation experiments: Can the risk be defined and controlled and who should do it?” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Edwards, W. (1971). “Social utilities,”The Engineering Economist. Summer symposium series,6.

  • Ege, K. J. (1971). “Enforcing environmental policy: The environmental ombudsman,”Cornell Law Review 56 847–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eugene Register Guard (1974). “Flaws found in three N-plants,” October 13, p. 4A.

  • Eugene Register Guard (1976). “Doubts linger on cyclamate risks,” January 14, p. 9A.

  • Fairley, W. B. (1975). “Criteria for evaluating the “small” probability of a catastrophe accident from the Maine transportation of liquified natural gas.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Fay, J. A. (1975). “A public interest point of view.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Findlayson, F. C. (1975). “A view from the outside,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D. W. (1974). “On the problems of measuring environmental benefits and costs,”Social Science Information 13 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, D. W. and Kerton, R. R. (1974). “Perceptions of environmental diseconomies: technical vs. economic invisibility,”Social Science Information 14 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A. C. and Krutilla, J. V. (1973). “Valuing long-run ecological consequences and irreversibilities,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, P. C. and Edwards, W. (i.p.). “Public values: Multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making,” in Schwartz, S. and Kaplan, M., eds.,Human Judgment and Decision Processes: Formal and Mathematical Approaches.

  • Garfield, E. (1975). “Genetic Engineering—too dangerous to continue or too important to discontinue?”Current Contents September 1, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettys, C. F., Kelley, C. W., and Peterson, C. R. (1973). “Best guess hypothesis in multistage inference,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 364–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillette, R. (1974). “Nuclear safety: Calculating the odds of disaster,”Science 185 838–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graaf, J. DeV. (1975). “Cost-benefit analysis: A critical view,”South African Journal of Economics 43 233–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. E. and Bourne, A. J. (1972).Reliability Technology. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, H. P. (1975a). “The risk-benefit calculus in safety determinations,”George Washington Law Review 43 791–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, H. P. (1975b). “Legal and political dimensions of risk-benefit methodology.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Hall, W. K. (1975). “Why risk analysis isn't working,”Long Range Planning, December, p. 25–29.

  • Hammond, A. H. and Maugh, T. H. (1974). “Stratospheric pollution and multiple threats to earth's ozone,”Science 186 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, S. H. and Gutmanis, I. (1973). “Estimates of waterborne residual control costs,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haveman, R. H. and Weisbrod, B. A. (1973). “The concept of benefits in cost-benefit analysis,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, C. (1968). “Safety assessment—a method for determining the performance of alarm and shutdown systems for chemical plants,”Measurement and Control 1 T72-T79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettich, W. (1976). “Distribution in benefit-cost analysis: A review of theoretical issues,”Public Finance Quarterly 4.

  • Hirshleifer, J., Bergstrom, T., and Rappoport, E. (1974). “Applying cost-benefit concepts to projects which alter human mortality.” UCLA-ENG-7478.

  • Hochman, H. M. and Rodgers, J. D. (1969). “Pareto-optimal redistribution,”American Economic Review 59 542–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenemser, K. H. (1975). “The failsafe risk,”Environment 17 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (1975a). “Social decision analysis,”Transactions of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers 359–371.

  • Howard, R. A. (1975b). “Decision analysis of social issues.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Howard, R. A., Matheson, J. E., and North, D. W. (1972). “The decision to seed hurricanes,”Science 176 1191–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1974). “Multiattribute utility models: A review of field and field-like studies,”Management Science 20 1393–1402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). “On the psychology of prediction,”Psychological Review 80 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantrowitz, A. (1975). “Controlling technology democratically,”American Scientist 63 505–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W. (1962).Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. L. and West, H. H. (1975). “The overall problem—Risk/benefit for LNG shipping and storage.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

  • Keating, W. T. (1975). “Politics, energy and the environment: The role of technology assessment,”American Behavioral Scientist 19 37–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, H. W. (1975).Nuclear Power Risks: A review of report of APS Society's study group on light water reactor safety. Cambridge, MA.: Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, H. W. and Moglewer, S. (1974).Preliminary Review of AEC Reactor Safety Study. San Francisco, CA. and Cambridge, MA.: Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H. (1976). “Limited knowledge and insurance protection,”Public Policy 24 227–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, S. and Onek, J. (1971). “The regulators and the people,”Virginia Law Review 57 1069–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Fischhoff, B. (1976). “Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?”Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin 16 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., and Phillips, T. (i.p.). “Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art,” in Jungermann, H. and deZeeuw, G., eds.,Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making.

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1971). “Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 89 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973). “Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 101 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, D. (1975). “Costs and benefits of alcohol consumption,”Society 13 (6): 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth, J. (1975). “A review of recent modelling efforts to determine the value of human life.” Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Research Memorandum, RM-75-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, J. P. (1976). “A risky road from hypothesis to fact,”Business Week, June 21: 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1975). “The feasibility of social policies,”Policy Sciences 6 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milch, J. (1976). “Inverted pyramids: The use and misuse of aviation forecasting,” Social Studies of Science6 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Mineral King Valley: Who shall watch the watchmen?”Rutgers Law Review, 1970,25: 103–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishan, E. J. (1972a).Cost-benefit Analysis. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishan, E. J. (1972b). “The futility of pareto-efficient distributions,”American Economic Review 62 971–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitnick, B. M. and Weiss, C. (1974). “The siting impasse and a rational choice model of regulatory behavior: An agency for power plant siting,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1 150–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, K. (1975). “Methodology recommended by the National Research Council for regulating chemical hazards.” Conference on Risk-Benefit Methodology and Application. Asilomar, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, K. S., Baum, E., Capener, F., Dresch, G., and Wright, R. (1975). “Hazardous wastes: A risk-benefit framework applied to cadmium and asbestos.” Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, R. E. (1973). “Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS).” ICSU/SCOPE Report No. 3. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment. Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L. (1974). “Subjective probability forecasting experiments in meteorology: Some preliminary results,”Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 55 1206–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nader, R. (1965).Unsafe at Any Speed. New York: Grossman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, C., Pearce, D., and Stanley, J. (1975). “An evaluation of cost-benefit analysis criteria,”Scottish Journal of Political Economy 22 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (1975a).Environmental impact of stratospheric flight. Washington, D.C.

  • National Academy of Sciences (1975b).Decision making for regulating chemicals in the environment. Washington, D.C.

  • Noll, R. G. (1976). “Information, decision-making procedures and energy policy,”American Behavioral Scientist, in press.

  • “Of Birds, Bees and the FPC.”Yale Law Review, 1967,77: 117–138.

  • O'Leary, B. (1975). “R & D, the thin edge of the wedge,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 (10): 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, H. J. and Cohen, J. J. (1975). “Revealed preferences: Comments on the Starr benefitrisk relationships.” Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Research Memorandum, RM-75-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahner, P. D. (1976). “The psychological displacement of anxiety: An application to nuclear energy.” Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Research Memorandum, RM-76-xx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P. (1973a).Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P. (1973b). “Introduction and Overview,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petak, W. J. (1973). “Policy-making accountability through benefit-risk analysis,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitz, G. F. (1974). “Subjective probability distributions for imperfectly known quantities,” in Gregg, L. W., ed.,Knowledge and Cognition. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R. (1973). “Voting, cost-benefit analysis, property-right specification and distribution,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primack, J. (1975). “An introduction to the issues,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 (10): 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, L. (1968). “Storm over storm king,”Audubon 70 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). “Decison Analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty,” Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, I. E. (1975). “A conceptual framework for research in the cost effective allocation of federal resources,”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 9 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. and Wallsten, T. S. (1972). “Individual decision behavior,”Annual Review of Psychology 23 131–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, N. C. (1975). “The safety study and its feedback,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowen, H. (1973). “The role of cost benefit analysis in policy making,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, J. L. (1970).Defending the Environment. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, D. W. (1976). “The impact statement boondoggle,”Science 192 509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, C. E. (1975). “Toxic chemicals and regulatory decision making,” inDecision Making for Regulating Chemicals in the Environment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvidge, J. (1975). “A three-step procedure for assigning probabilities to rare events,” in Wendt, D. and Vlek, C., eds.,Utility, Subjective Probability, and Human Decision Making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, C. D. and Zaidi, M. A. (1975). “Benefit-cost analysis in health care,”Bioscience Communications 1 193–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1976). “Cognitive processes and societal risk taking,” in Carroll, J. S. and Payne, J. W., eds.,Cognition and Social Behavior. Potomac, Md.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. C. (1977). “Behavioral decision theory,”Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefits vs. technological risk,”Science 165 1232–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C., Rudman, R. L., and Whipple, C. G. (1976). “Philosophical basis for risk analysis,”Annual Review of Energy 1 629–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauch, R. E. (1975). “‘Squishy’ problems and quantitative methods,”Policy Sciences 6 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. and Rosen, S. (1973). “The value of saving a life: Evidence from the labor market.” Department of Economics, University of Rochester.

  • Tihansky, D. (1973). “Survey of empirical benefit studies,” in Peskin, H. M. and Seskin, E. P., eds.,Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. and Crinklaw, L. D. (1974). “Attributing responsibility for an accident: A methodological and conceptual critique,”Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 6 112–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, N. (1975). “Recombinant DNA: NIMH group stirs storm by drafting laxer rules,”Science 190 767–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherwax, R. K. (1975). “Virtues and limitations of risk analysis,”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31 (10): 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbecker, L. W. (1974).The impacts of snow enhancement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. H. (1972). “Earthquake safety in the city of Long Beach based on the concept of balanced risk,” inPerspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, pp. 87–95. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, R. H. (1973). “The risk imbalance in current public policies,” in Proceedings of the International Systems Safety Society Symposium. Redondo Beach, California: J. H. Wiggins, Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. (1974). “Yes, Virginia, You can believe in a credible interval.” Paper Presented at Thirteenth Bayesian Research Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

  • Von Winterfeldt, D. and Fischer, G. W. (1975). “Multiattribute utility theory: Models and assessment procedures,” in Wendt, D. and Vlek, C., eds.,Utility, Probability and Human Decision Making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser, R. (1975). “Procedures for valuing lives,”Public Policy 23 419–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser, R. and Shepard, D. (1976). “Where now for saving lives?”Law and Contemporary Problems.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Research, A Branch of Perceptronics, Eugene, Oregon

    Baruch Fischhoff

Authors
  1. Baruch Fischhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by the University of California, Los Angeles, Subcontract No. KS59081-0 to Oregon Research Institute.

This paper was stimulated by my participation in “Risk Benefit Methodology and Application,” a conference held September 21–26, 1975, in Pacific Grove, California, and chaired by Dr. D. Okrent. Many of the ideas expressed could be attributed either directly or indirectly to a variety of conference participants. I would like to particularly thank Philip Bereano, Joseph Coates, Barbara Combs, Ward Edwards, Lewis Goldberg, Paul Hoffman, Jack Hirshleifer, Robert Kates, Sarah Lichtenstein, Joanne Linnerooth, David Okrent, Leon Rappoport, Peggy Roecker and Paul Slovic for help in stimulating and clarifying my thinking. The title is borrowed in part fromZen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig (New York: Bantam, 1974) where some related lines of thought are developed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischhoff, B. Cost benefit analysis and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Policy Sci 8, 177–202 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01712294

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01712294

Keywords

Search

Navigation