2.1. Wesley Clair Mitchell and the NBER

In 1920, Wesley Clair Mitchell (1874–1948) founded the NBER. Although today considered a “mainstream” economic organization, at the time the NBER represented something new. In the early 20th century, neoclassical economics was very deductive. Critics could persuasively accuse it of being mere armchair theorizing based on premises about human self-interest. In contrast, institutionalist economists like Mitchell claimed the mantle of science: they gathered data with which to generate and test theories. In Mitchell’s words, they were replacing the “man of hunches” with the “man of facts” (quoted in Smith, Reference Smith1994, p. 29).

Mitchell spent most of his career at Columbia, but he had studied economics at the University of Chicago, where he was influenced by Thorsten Veblen and John Dewey.Footnote ⁶ Veblen was an institutional economist, from whom Mitchell learned to appreciate an empirical and historically grounded approach to economics. Dewey was a pragmatist philosopher who questioned the sharp dichotomy between science and ethics. On the empirical side, he argued scientific theories should be judged, not so much by how well they conform to reality, as by how useful they are for predictions and applications. He further argued that means and ends are in dialogue: just as we evaluate specific actions based on how well they advance our ends (or objectives), we revise our understanding of our ends based on our experience with attempts to arrive at them. Dewey held a high view of democracy as well as a progressive vision for science, which he saw as distinct but ideally complementary endeavors (Festenstein, Reference Festenstein and Zalta2018). The extent to which Mitchell accepted Dewey’s means-end continuum is unclear (Biddle, Reference Biddle and Rutherford1998). But Mitchell did adopt Dewey’s approach to empirical work as involving judgments about what is useful. He also esteemed democracy as distinct from science but in dialogue with it.

Mitchell’s applied research matured during WWI, when he joined the War Industries Board. The board was trying to understand how to mobilize production for the war effort, but as its chief Bernard Baruch put it, “The greatest deterrent to effective action was the lack of facts” (quoted in Smith, Reference Smith1994, p. 91). It is just hard to know how many resources you can mobilize if you do not even know the resource base. This experience shaped Mitchell’s understanding of how applied work could contribute to public policy. Two years after the war, Mitchell founded the NBER, with economists such as Arthur Burns and Simon Kuznets also playing important roles in its early years.

In Mitchell’s view and others’, the democratic process makes normative decisions; social science finds the facts to inform that process. In that way, social science could be of realistic, practical use to business and government. To instantiate this philosophy, Mitchell established three rules for the NBER at its founding. First, it should only conduct research with public relevance. Accordingly, the NBER focused on such issues as business cycles, measuring inflation, and measuring national income. For example, its first report was titled, “Income in the USA: Its Amount and Distribution.” (As is clear from the title, distributional issues were of concern from the outset of national income accounting.) Second, the NBER would present scientific facts free of all bias and propaganda. Accordingly, it tended to publish enormous volumes with numerous tables and charts. Third, it would make no policy recommendations, presenting only the facts to the true policymakers. This rule is still in force today.Footnote ⁷

In fact, Mitchell was a progressive who wanted a more equitable income distribution. But he did not feel that it was his role, qua scientist, to advocate for particular policies. Rather, he believed his research could best serve policymaking by allowing it to speak for itself. Economic science should inform public decisions, but it should always be mindful of its place.

2.2. Lionel Robbins and the nature of economic science

A second episode surrounds Lionel Robbins (1898–1984), the LSE economist who shaped economics through his proposed redefinition of the field. In his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (1935), Robbins defined it as a “science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” In other words, economics is a way of thinking about the world in terms of opportunity costs (p. 16). Robbins’s analytical definition stood in contrast to the prevailing classificatory definitions at the time, which demarcated a set of economic topics. For example, according to Marshall, economics is the study of the “ordinary business of life,” which he reduced to material rewards (Marshall, Reference Marshall1946, p. 14). Edwin Cannan, Marshall’s counterpart at LSE and Robbins’s predecessor, similarly equated economics with the study of wealth, which in turn relates to “material welfare” (Cannan, Reference Cannan1922, pp. 1–3).

Robbin’s definition is easy to take for granted today, but arguably it was one of the most important moves in the history of 20th century economics, shaping the profession in ways that were constraining in some respects but freeing in others. It was constraining in the sense that it restricted the range of economically acceptable logic. In this respect, it was hand-in-glove with the development of a post-war neoclassical orthodoxy. Under a definition of economics as material welfare, Mitchell clearly qualified as an economist and so, even, did Marx, as they manifestly were looking at material welfare. Under Robbins’s definition, they are written out, with “Marxist economics” now almost an oxymoron.

On the other hand, the definition was freeing as it allowed a whole range of new topics to be explored using the economic way of thinking. After all, opportunity costs are everywhere. Robbins himself recognized this, bringing up the possibility of the economic study of such varied topics as religious practices or prostitution. Indeed, he had come to the idea in part by reflecting on his own war-time service and his dilemma at finding himself in the odd position of lecturing on the “economics of war.” War and military strategy were not topics that fit well in the old definition of economics, but, again, they clearly involved using scarce resources. Thus, it is no surprise that Robbin’s definition found mainstream acceptance in the 1960s, the same decade when Gary Becker was developing an economics of discrimination or crime, or a host of other things where there was not an economics of that before (Backhouse & Medema, Reference Backhouse and Medema2009a, Reference Backhouse and Medema b).Footnote ⁸

In his methodological essay, Robbins tried to walk a very fine line (Hands, Reference Hands2009). On one hand, he wanted to avoid the discredited and, by 1930, frankly embarrassing psychological theories on which 19th century utilitarians and marginalists had built much of neoclassical theory. Those theorists thought they were following the science, but the science kept changing. Notably, Bentham had argued that human beings are motivated by hedonistic pain and pleasure tied to sense experience, but it is hard to square the content of that theory with even casual experience of human behavior. Jevons and Edgeworth grounded the more specific theory of diminishing marginal utility in 19th century psychophysics, especially the so-called Weber-Fechner law, according to which people display diminishing sensitivity to stimuli. For example, as we pile increasing weight into a pack, the additional weight required for a person to perceive the difference is proportionate to the weight already in the pack. According to Jevons and Edgeworth, hedonistic pleasure thus also diminishes with the “input” of consumption of a given good. Again, by the 20th century, plenty of counter-examples had been documented. Thus, economics was coming under attack for its shaky psychological foundations. Even worse, the very testability of economic theory, or at least its psychological foundations, was now being questioned, as there seemed to be no way to observe mental states and so no way to test utility theory. Thus, by the logic of positivism, talk of utility was nonsensical.

One possible response to these attacks was to accept methodological behaviorism, which was popular in psychology at the time. Behaviorism was an effort to look only at the outwardly observable behavior of agents without referring to their inscrutable states of mind or motives. This, in fact, was the road that Samuelson was contemplating around the same time, when introducing his axioms of choice behavior as a graduate student. (What we now know as the weak axiom of revealed preference was not originally called that by Samuelson. In fact, he was trying to rid economics of all reference to utility or preference.) But Robbins did not want to go that far, because doing so would rule out valuation and even the adjective choice modifying the behavior (pp. 87–88). Economic behavior would be indistinguishable from the theory of operant conditioning introduced by the great behaviorist B.F. Skinner or even from Pavlovian conditioning (Pavlov’s dogs).Footnote ⁹

Instead, Robbins based his economic science on a particular kind of observation, namely, introspection or “inner experience.” Robbins said that we know from our inner experience that we can, and do, prioritize our alternatives. This “indisputable fact,” together with the facts that means are scarce and can be put to alternative ends, make up the foundation of Robbins’s economic science (pp. 12–13). These facts allowed him to keep the psychology of choice and valuation, without needing hedonism on the one side or behaviorism on the other. Said Robbins, “we can judge whether different possible experiences are of equivalent or greater or less importance to us. From this elementary fact of experience we can derive the idea of the substitutability of different goods, of the demand for one good in terms of another, of an equilibrium distribution of goods between different uses, of equilibrium of exchange and of the formation of prices” (p. 75).

Robbins’s push to move economics from a utilitarian foundation built on experienced pleasure and pain to a theory of choice was a key step in the second wave of the ordinal revolution of the 1930s, which he advanced along with his LSE colleagues R.G.D. Allen and John Hicks. With this ordinalist move, economics no longer needed to rely on a doctrine of hedonism or any other discredited psychology. It did not even need diminishing marginal utility (Robbins, Reference Robbins1935, p.92).

Robbins was very clear that people do have values, and that economics takes those values as facts. Adopting Max Weber’s thesis, Robbins conceded that in that sense economics is value-laden, but in a more important sense economics itself is value-free because it “is entirely neutral between ends” (pp. 83–91). “The ends may be noble or they may be base. They may be ‘material’ or ‘immaterial’… But if the attainment of one set of ends involves the sacrifice of others, then it has an economic aspect” (pp. 24–25). Economics takes the ends or values as given and studies them in relation to scarce means.Footnote ¹⁰

Robbins’s methodological positivism had important implications for what economic science has to say about economic policy. For example, does economic theory, per se, provide a rationale for redistribution? His mentor Cannan had said it did, introducing an argument that had recently been developed more thoroughly by A.C. Pigou in The Economics of Welfare (Pigou, Reference Pigou1932). To wit, because of diminishing marginal utility – and under the additional premise that any two individuals could achieve the same level of utility if given the same money incomes and prices – we can maximize total utility in the society through a more equitable distribution of money. After all, the rich person would lose money at a low level of marginal utility and the poor would gain money at a high level.

However, Robbins’s analysis forced the conclusion that economic theory had no such significance, for three reasons. First, we do not really need to assume anything about diminishing marginal utility, which is a cardinal concept. We only need the premise, verified by introspection that people rank alternatives in some ordinal way (pp. 138–139). Second, interpersonal comparisons of utility are unscientific, because they cannot be verified either by external observations of behavior or by introspection (which can only inform us of our own minds). Such a comparison as one person’s marginal utility of money to another’s “necessarily falls outside the scope of any positive science… It involves an element of conventional valuation. Hence it is essentially normative. It has no place in pure science” (p. 139).

Third, even if we allow interpersonal comparisons of utility and concede that people have roughly equal capacities for enjoyment and diminishing marginal utility, we still could not conclude that we ought to redistribute money from the rich to the poor, because that would be basing a normative claim on facts, and, as Hume had said, we can never infer ought from is (pp. 142–143, 148–149).

In summary, Robbins’s economic method differed completely from Mitchell’s, the former emphasizing introspection and deductive theoretical models and the latter emphasizing the gathering of facts and inductive hypothesis formation. Yet both critiqued those aspects of utility theory that they deemed unscientific, and in the process severely limited policy recommendations. Both thought that economists, as scientists, can describe the distribution of resources and can forecast distributional changes under different scenarios. They can take as a datum what people think, ethically, about different distributions. But they cannot make policy recommendations, nor even employ a weighting system that suggests one distribution outperforms another.

3.1. Risking irrelevance

The tight strictures that Mitchell and Robbins put on policy recommendations, in an effort to stay on the right side of the fact-value dichotomy, were not acceptable to everybody. They were attacked by others, on at least two fronts.

The first line of attack was that they risk making social science irrelevant. With respect to Mitchell’s proposals, his junior colleague Robert Lynd, the Columbia sociologists famous for his study of Middletown, criticized Mitchell in his 1938 Stafford Little lectures at Princeton, published as Knowledge for What? The Place of the Social Sciences in American Culture (Lynd, Reference Lynd1939).Footnote ¹¹ Lynd critiqued Mitchell and others who understood social science as pure technique. He argued that, if they confine themselves to studying the facts as they are, social scientists will accept the status quo instead of adopting a critical stance. For example, they will come to accept consumer culture and the existence of business cycles as inevitable. In contrast, with a more critical stance, they have the freedom to imagine how society might be if rightly ordered – that is, if it satisfied the true ends of consumption instead of stimulating false desires with advertising in order to feed production, as if production were an end in itself.

Lynd also wanted to demonstrate how purposively conceived, but still empirical, social science could achieve valued norms. For example, in his earlier work in Middletown, he argued that, whereas foolish, invidious comparisons to sophisticated urban life made people unhappy, contentment with a simpler communal life could lead to greater fulfillment. Finally, Lynd wanted to fulfill John Dewey’s plea to understand means and ends as part of a continuum. He thought that, yes, science could inform people about how to achieve given ends, but he also thought it could shape our ends.

Ultimately, Lynd’s purpose-driven work (or, at least, the progressive purposes he particularly advanced) proved controversial and cost him his relationships with foundations. His career in academia continued to thrive, but his stance cost him the potential to serve in government or other spheres close to policymaking. This, of course, was precisely what Mitchell had feared, with good reason.Footnote ¹²

Robbins met with similar criticisms about potential irrelevance but with very different solutions. Roy Harrod (Reference Harrod1938) used his address to Section F of the British Academy, published in the Economic Journal, to reflect on Robbins’s treatise. He pointed out that all economic policies have distributional effects. For example, movements toward free trade, such as the abolition of the corn laws that the classical economists had worked so hard to achieve, result in winners and losers. Such moves, he said, clearly result in a net increase in national income, but, if it is impossible to weigh the gains of one group against the losses of another, then it is impossible to state whether such reforms result in economic gains to society. Harrod could find no flaw in Robbins’s logic. But he lugubriously lamented it and suggested there must be a role for a second branch of economics, which examines optimality, in addition to a first branch that looks at price formation.

In a remarkable sign of the efficiency of the exchange of ideas in the age of snail mail, Robbins, Kaldor, and Hicks responded with successive comments to one another in each issue of the EJ. First, in a model of handwringing, Robbins (Reference Robbins1938) confessed that he felt Harrod’s pain but had to go uncompromisingly where logic led him. In response, Nicholas Kaldor (Reference Kaldor1939) and John Hicks (Reference Hicks1939) proposed what is now known as the potential Pareto test, or potential compensation test. Agreeing partially with Robbins, Kaldor conceded outright the impossibility of interpersonal comparisons of utility. But he argued both Robbins and Harrod had too quickly leapt from there to pessimistic conclusions about whether “‘economics as a science can say anything by way of prescription’” (p. 549). In fact, he said, when “a certain policy leads to an increase in … aggregate real income, the economist’s case for the policy is quite unaffected by the question of the comparability of individual satisfactions; since in all such cases it is possible to make everybody better off than before…” (p. 550). Thus, according to Kaldor (and Hicks), the compensation test not only allows economists to say more, it allows economists to have it both ways, to make normative recommendations in the name of value-free science!

This history is tremendously important for understanding BCA’s position as it moves more seriously into considering distributional issues. Crucially, the potential Pareto test was not developed merely to sidestep the need for economists to make an ethical value judgment about the distribution of income, while kicking the can down the road and leaving it to, say, the “distribution branch” of government (Musgrave) to address the question. That may have satisfied somebody like Mitchell. But Robbins had taken things a step further. It was not just that it is not economists’ place to make such judgments. No. By the lights of logical positivism, only statements that are observationally verifiable (or statements of pure logic) are intelligible, so any normative discussion about the relative merits of different distributional outcomes involves nonsense. Thus, it is impossible for anybody to make any such judgments rationally. Furthermore, since real-world policies always involve winners and losers, it is thus impossible for anybody – economist or policymaker – to rationally judge whether a policy results in a social improvement. The potential Pareto test was devised as an escape from this radical conclusion. It provided a way to tie statements about social improvements to facts, without making any ethical statements about distribution.

3.2. Fact-value entanglement

Meanwhile, even as economists were trying to honor this sharp fact/value dichotomy, philosophers in the postwar period were beginning to attack it and, along with it, Hume’s no-ought-from-is dictum. Hilary Putnam (1926–2016), for example, another admirer of Dewey and a philosopher who paid a good deal of attention to economics, argued that science inherently entangles facts and values (Putnam, Reference Putnam2002; Putnam & Walsh, Reference Putnam and Walsh2012).Footnote ¹³ For one thing, scientists must conduct their work, including fact-finding work, according to their epistemic values, most overarchingly holding truth as a valued end, but also holding such subordinate values as parsimony, generality, coherence, elegance, predesigned research plans, and so forth. Additionally, they must make evaluative judgments when describing the world as it is, that is, when stating facts. To put a recent twist on one of Putnam’s examples, take the descriptive statement, “the Ukrainian people are being very courageous.” Stating such a fact inherently involves an evaluation of behavior as well as an evaluation of what it means to have courage, as opposed to, say, either foolhardiness on one side or cowardice on the other.Footnote ¹⁴ Moving from such everyday descriptions to policy analysis, regulators must evaluate concepts such as “an adequate margin of safety;” economists must evaluate behavior as rational or irrational.Footnote ¹⁵

Of course, we cannot just conflate fact and value either. Putnam still made a distinction between them, just not a sharp dichotomy. Some descriptions are more evaluative than others, and some of those evaluations have more ethical content than others. “The Ukrainians are courageous” is a thick description that entangles a good deal of ethical content about the virtue of courage in its description. It is simply impossible to make such a description without entangling values. The same can sometimes be true in economics. For example, descriptions of economic “development” inevitably involve evaluation (Nussbaum & Sen, Reference Nussbaum, Sen and Krausz1989). Too, as Amartya Sen pointed out early in his career, some value judgments are tied up in factual content more than others. For example, the judgment that this year’s increase in GDP is good depends on a number of facts, not only about the aggregate index itself but also related facts such as changes in the distribution of income (Sen, Reference Sen1967).Footnote ¹⁶

A second philosophical critique of the fact/value dichotomy has come from Alasdair MacIntyre (b. 1929), who takes a neo-Aristotelian teleological approach to critiquing Hume’s no-ought-from-is dictum. A classic example is that from the factual description, “he is a sea captain” we might well conclude, “he ought to do whatever a sea captain ought to do.” This is a teleological argument, because the ought is entangled with the end (telos) or purpose of seafaring. This example lacks specific content, but it at least makes the grammatical point that one can conclude an ought from an is. In After Virtue (1984), MacIntyre developed the argument with the aid of additional examples:

These arguments are valid because a watch and a farmer are functional concepts, defined by the functions they are expected to serve, so a farmer cannot be defined independently of a good farmer.

How does this line of argument apply to economics? Well, first, if we say that individuals are utility maximizers, then it follows that individuals ought to maximize their utility. From there, it is a short step to concluding that public policy ought to be directed to allowing them to do that, by increasing income, relaxing other constraints, providing public goods, and so forth. This logic is clearly implicit in Bentham’s brand of utilitarianism, which seeks to find “the greatest good for the greatest number.” It is even implicit in the strict Pareto test, which entails maximizing the good for one person, holding others’ constant. Thus, according to MacIntyre, it is not so easy to wall off economic descriptions from their normative implications.

Similar critiques could be made of other schools of economics as well. For example, the classical economists routinely thought in terms of social groups or classes more than individuals, but these models implied their own respective oughts. For example, François Quesnay and the French physiocrats thought in terms of three groups: the land-owning class of proprietors, the productive class of farmers, and the unproductive class of artisans and merchants. The physiocratic scheme implied it was the duty of the proprietors to steer resources toward the productive class. Marx is another obvious example of somebody who thought in terms of groups, and the relationship between labor and the means of production. He also thought teleologically, arguing that History is governed by material forces which inevitably lead from feudalism to capitalism to socialism. The implication, of course, is that one ought to be on the right side of History.

I am not saying that any of these are particularly good models. My point is only that neoclassical economics is not the only school that faces is-ought dilemmas. They are inherent to economics because economics always involves thick descriptions with normative implications.

4.1. What “counts” as an economic value? The case of outdoor recreation

Such fact/value entanglement can affect BCA in at least two ways. First, it affects what counts as a benefit or cost. This issue has been present from the very first attempts to systematize BCA, when American practitioners created the so-called “Green Book,” a 1950 handbook on BCA for water projects.Footnote ¹⁷ The practitioners had found that, across the wide array of agencies working on such projects, there was an equally wide array of inconsistent practices. Such inconsistencies are unsettling, as they undermined the authority that BCA needs to have if it is to settle disputes (Porter Theodore, Reference Porter Theodore1995). As John Maurice Clark and others put it in a consultant’s report: “Democracy has to rely on technicians in matters inscrutable to the non-specialist, but preferably where the specialist is following a well-authenticated technique. In this case, the disagreements among the specialists are evidence that they do not possess an authenticated technique…” (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Grant and Kelso1952, p. 11). The Green Book was an effort to settle the disputes and authenticate BCA techniques.

How did the Green Book economists think about benefits? In terms of the general theory, they thought in terms of national development and national income. Accordingly, they were thinking about incomes to firms and rents to factors of production. In other words, they were thinking of revenue rectangles, not something like consumer surplus. Moving to specifics, they began by identifying the key types of benefits of water projects, including reclamation, hydroelectric power, flood control, navigation, municipal water supplies, and outdoor recreation.

Quantitatively, recreation was by no means the most important, but it received a great deal of attention. This attention can be attributed to five factors. First, and most importantly, recreation was becoming increasingly important, as participation accelerated following the War (Clawson, Reference Clawson1958). Second, frankly, including recreation would pump up the benefit-cost ratios, and there was a lot of pressure to do that. A third factor was the role of recreation in cost-sharing formulae. Since the Reclamation Act of 1902, reclamation projects required reimbursement from farmers. But costs that were explicitly incurred for other objectives did not need to be recovered, nor did the full share of joint costs incurred for multiple objectives. So if some costs could be allocated to recreation, it would reduce the net costs to farmers. In this way, quantifying outdoor recreation benefits translated into farm aid – always popular to governments. Fourth, handling recreation created some frictions across agencies when their incentives were not aligned. Finally, because it is a nonmarket good, recreation was just one of the most difficult nuts to crack.

Each of these factors can be illustrated with a single episode, centered around the proposed Echo Park dam in Dinosaur National Monument, near the Colorado/Utah border. It was one of the most important episodes in the history of American environmentalism, and a first big win for the movement. It was also the spur to serious thinking about the economics of outdoor recreation.

When first proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation before the war, the dam seemed like a common-sense use of public lands to obtain much-needed water resources in the west. The National Parks director, Newton Drury, was at first supportive. But after the War, popular attitudes were changing, and public opinion turned against the project. By 1955, it was dead. But, meanwhile, it was caught up in the interagency clashes inside the Department of the Interior. The whole project was problematic from the beginning: it was a Bureau of Reclamation idea, advancing its mission, but on NPS land and taxing its staff. Although the precise details of when and why are murky, by the late 1940s Drury had turned against the project and begun to fight it. This reversal won him few friends, and eventually, he was forced to resign in 1951.

Intriguingly, during these machinations, Drury exploited the uncertainties surrounding how to measure recreation benefits. In 1948, the NPS concluded that, in general, the values of park and recreation facilities cannot be measured quantitatively, so they would “no longer attempt to furnish such estimates.” Instead, only a “judgment value” would be made. Furthermore, for expediency, the NPS would simply use the blanket rule that recreation benefits were equal to those costs specifically incurred for recreation facilities. (After all, why else would they do it if the benefits were not at least that amount?) Moreover, no portion of joint costs would be allocated to recreation.

Reclamation leaders were apoplectic. As they pointed out, the expediency would dilute benefit-cost ratios, as a ratio of one was being averaged in. Additionally, by minimizing the cost share allocated to recreation, it made farmers and ranchers (i.e., Reclamation’s stakeholders) bear more of the burden. Furthermore, even if any joint costs subsequently were allocated to recreation, because benefits were set equal to direct (not joint) costs, the benefit-cost ratio for the recreation portion would then be less than one, thus creating a catch-22.

The Secretary of Interior clearly was displeased, and Drury eventually backed off. Thus chastened, the NPS reversed itself: from now on, it would assume that benefits were equal to 2× costs! This absurd formula clearly undermined the scientific credibility of BCA. One cynical – but entirely plausible – explanation of Drury’s move is that he made it so as to appear to be cooperative, while adopting a plan that he must have known the economists would shoot down, thus doing his dirty work for him. Indeed, the Green Book economists and others throughout the bureaucracy did just that, sending the valuation methodology back to the drawing board.

Meanwhile, for the economists just trying to keep their heads down and do their jobs, the essential problem of valuing recreation remained: prices are not observed. In 1948, to help it find a way out of its dilemma, the NPS elicited the opinions of 10 prestigious experts. Of the 10, only Harold Hotelling held out hope for finding a way to estimate recreation benefits. His response is the source for the modern Travel Cost Model of recreation demand, but at the time his minority recommendation was ignored by the NPS. The other nine experts were unanimous that it could not be done.

Based on their recommendations, Park economist Roy Prewitt concluded that it would be better not to measure recreation benefits:

Prewitt concluded that “it might be better to forget the words ‘economic value of recreation’ and focus attention on the expenditures induced by recreation.” For, “It is in this area that an objective approach can be made…” (emphasis in original). The next year, NPS began gathering data on daily expenditures for recreation trips. In 1957, it officially adopted this “unit-day” approach.

This episode illustrates four important realities about the relationship between BCA and the wider policy and social environment. First, BCA is subject to pressures from the crudest forms of interest group politics. In this case, that pressure came from petty bureaucratic turf wars, but also from affected stakeholders like landowners who wanted Western development and farmers who wanted offsets to their Reclamation reimbursements. The Green Book economists, and BCA practitioners today, are right to resist these kinds of pressures, upholding their objectivity in that sense of the word. Second, though, BCA truly is entwined with political questions, in the best sense of the word “political.” That is, it is entwined with debates about how to govern the polis. Facts documented by BCA can inform those debates, while at the same time, the people’s concerns and values shape the analysis.

Third, how BCA practitioners define a concept like “economic benefits” has implications for which values get incorporated into our analyses, and consequently whose values are counted. Thus, they cannot describe benefits (or costs) as pure facts without also entangling values. At a time when “economics” meant material welfare, practitioners evaluated the immaterial enjoyment of wilderness as out of bounds. Too, at a time when “benefits” meant revenues, they preferred to quantify the expenditures induced by recreation to quantifying the consumer surplus from the free services afforded by such experiences.

Finally, it can be a fine line between striving to measure some object objectively and choosing the object to be measured based on the objectivity of the measurements. That is, objectivity is an epistemic value that is not necessarily neutral. In this case, the objectivity of the measurements shaped the decision to measure expenditures rather than benefits. For, as Prewitt put it, recreation “is of the mind and body, … it is a psychic value and it cannot be measured in objective terms.” Only a subjective judgment value can be made. Measuring expenditures was preferable because “it is in this area that an objective approach can be made.” Similar issues have plagued other kinds of valuation questions over the years, such as the value of life.

4.2. Whose values count? BCA and distributional effects

These implications for what we value necessarily entail implications for whose values count, and to what degree. For example, in the seminal case of outdoor recreation, whether we count it or not determines the degree to which we count the values of recreationists. Whether we count health effects determines the degree to which we count the values of those whose health is jeopardized, and so forth.

This brings us back to the issue of interpersonal comparisons. The description of society as the sum of individuals entangles facts and values in particular ways, but the efforts by Robbins and Kaldor and others to disentangle them have led to some of the biggest dilemmas we face in BCA. Those dilemmas arise because, by trying to separate out distributional effects, which require ethical assessments, from the facts of net benefits, they only buried them deeper. This can be seen in three ways.

First, as decision rules for ranking social states based on individual noncomparable ordinal preference relations, potential Pareto tests cannot escape Arrow’s (Reference Arrow1951) impossibility theorem. They are not rational choice orderings. In particular, as Tibor Scitovsky showed, they can have intransitive cycles even when each individual has well-ordered preferences, even cycles of two.Footnote ¹⁸ That is, it is entirely possible that there could be two points in the policy space, A and B, such that a move from point A to point B, accompanied by a suitable redistribution of resources, would make everybody better off and that a move from B to A, accompanied by a different redistribution, would make everybody better off. These are known as Scitovsky reversals. These reversals arise because, fundamentally, it is impossible to aggregate noncomparable utility functions in a way to rationally order social states, which inevitably involve tradeoffs among individuals.

Second, potential compensations are not the same thing as actual compensations (Little, Reference Little1957; Sen, Reference Sen1987). It is small consolation to the poor to be told that Policy X will impose great costs on them but will be adopted because it increases economic efficiency enough to potentially compensate them, though there are no plans to do so! Thus, when used as a decision rule, the potential Pareto test is effectively a normative assumption that distributional assumptions do not matter.

In fact, one could even use the logic of potential Pareto tests to block any proposed redistribution program or repeal existing ones. Any real-world taxation-and-redistribution policy has some deadweight loss, some excess burden, associated with it. Therefore, repealing it would increase economic efficiency, removing the deadweight loss and creating enough surplus to allow the winners to compensate the losers through lump-sum transfers. Only a truly lump-sum transfer could pass the test, but such policies do not exist. To address this concern, Harberger (Reference Harberger1980) proposed replacing the lump-sum transfers of the standard potential Pareto tests with the least-cost, real-world transfer scheme, but even his proposal would still justify repealing a relatively inefficient transfer scheme on the grounds that it would be possible to find a better one, without actually doing the better one.

Third, as a matter of logic, even the strict Pareto test involves the normative evaluation that it is good to increase everybody’s real income, a point that Hicks himself came to realize (1975). Thus, tests of potential Pareto improvements entail thick descriptions of the type discussed by Putnam. They entail judgments about the potential to actually make a transfer as well as judgments about what constitutes an improvement.

Another way of seeing this is to go back to Robbins’s defense of economics as the science of choice behavior on the grounds that we can rely on the fact, verifiable from introspection, that people have preference orderings. He might just as well have concluded from introspection that people have preference orderings for social states including distribution. Without explicitly discussing it, Robbins seems to have made the evaluative judgment that these preferences do not count, which is hardly the scientific thing to do. In this sense, his overall argument for noncomparability is self-refuting.

Benefit-cost practitioners have tried to counter the undesirable ethical properties of the potential Pareto test with other moves that are hard to defend on economic grounds, in the hopes that two wrongs make a right. Consider for example our standard use of a homogeneous value of statistical life (VSL) for everybody, regardless of age or income. This hardly matches the empirical facts, where we find different groups willing to make different tradeoffs, because of differences in their ability to pay, their access to substitutes, or preferences.

Of course, it is understandable why we do this. Because we cannot (or do not) use distributional weights, and because the rich have higher VSLs than the poor, introducing heterogeneous VSLs would systematically tilt BCA in favor of policies that benefit the health of the rich over the poor. Needless to say, such procedures would raise serious ethical objections. Ignoring heterogeneity in VSLs seemingly solves this problem. However, it creates a new one. As I illustrate below, ignoring heterogeneity in VSLs can make a policy look like a Pareto improvement when in fact all groups, including the poor, are worse off under it! Thus, standard BCA decision rules can reduce welfare and fail to do the justice of honoring a group’s right to set its own priorities. This dilemma turns out to be rooted in the premise that we cannot or should not use distributional weights. One solution is to use both distributional weights and heterogeneous VSLs.

Consider the following numerical example.Footnote ¹⁹ Suppose the average VSL is $6 m, but the VSL of the rich is $8 m and the VSL of the poor, because of their lower income, is $4 m. The poor cannot afford to pay as much money to reduce risks to their health and safety without foregoing other basic needs, while the rich can make such purchases while only foregoing luxuries.

Consider now two policies, Policies A and B, that save lives. Tables 1 and 2 show that both policies impose gross costs of $1700 m on the rich but nothing on the poor. Policy A saves 100 statistical lives of the rich and 200 of the poor, for a total of 300. Policy B saves 200 lives of the rich and 50 lives of the poor, for a total of only 250. Because it saves more lives at the same cost, Policy A must look better when we use the average VSL of $6 m, and indeed it does ($100 m vs. ‑$200 m, with net values in bold). If we use heterogeneous values, however, Policy A would generate $-900 m in net benefits for the rich and only $800 m in net benefits for the poor, for an aggregate loss of $100 m. Policy B would generate $-100 m in net benefits for the rich and $200 m in net benefits for the poor, for a net gain of $100 m in aggregate. Policy B has higher net benefits. Thus, using heterogeneous values, the efficiency criterion seemingly steers us to Policy B because it saves more rich lives. This would seem to imply that socially, we would trade 100 lives of the poor for 50 lives of the rich. Nothing could be less just or more reprehensible! It would seem the logic for using homogenous VSLs is clear.

Table 1. Benefit-cost analyses for Policy A.

Note: Benefits without heterogeneity in willingness to pay are based on a VSL of $6 m; benefits with heterogeneity are based on a VSL of $8 m for the rich and $4 m for the poor.

Net values in bold.

Table 2. Benefit-cost analyses for Policy B.

Note: Benefits without heterogeneity in willingness to pay are based on a VSL of $6 m; benefits with heterogeneity are based on a VSL of $8 m for the rich and $4 m for the poor.

Net values in bold.

Yet, in fact, the supposed choice of Policy B does not follow from using heterogeneous VSLs per se, but only from doing so without distributional weights. Giving greater weight to the net benefits of the poor would have steered us back to Policy A, which intuitively is the right choice. Why use heterogeneous VSLs if we are going to undo them with the distributional weights? The reason can be made clear with one more example.

Consider two different policies, C and D, also illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. Policy C costs $650 m, with the costs falling $250 m on the rich and $400 m on the poor. Policy D costs $700 m, with $600 m falling on the rich and only $100 m on the poor. Both policies save 150 lives, but Policy C saves 100 of the poor and 50 of the rich, while Policy D reverses the split, saving 100 of the rich and 50 of the poor. Using homogenous VSLs of $6 m, we see that the aggregate net benefit of Policy C is $250 m whereas for Policy D it is only $200 m. Using the efficiency criterion alone, Policy C dominates. Moreover, it seems to raise no distributional red flags, as no group is worse off under C than D. Policy C looks more favorable, so using these criteria we would choose it over Policy D. But this is the wrong conclusion. When we consider the groups’ true VSLs, we now see that both groups are better off under Policy D than Policy C. Under Policy D, the poor get $100 m in net benefits versus zero under Policy C, while the rich get $200 m versus $150 m.

Table 3. Benefit-cost analyses for Policy C.

Note: Benefits without heterogeneity in willingness to pay are based on a VSL of $6 m; benefits with heterogeneity are based on a VSL of $8 m for the rich and $4 m for the poor.

Net values in bold.

Table 4. Benefit-cost analyses for Policy D.

Note: Benefits without heterogeneity in willingness to pay are based on a VSL of $6 m; benefits with heterogeneity are based on a VSL of $8 m for the rich and $4 m for the poor.

Net values in bold.

The problem with Policy C relative to D is that the additional 50 lives of the poor saved come at an incremental cost to the poor of $300 m, while the group is only willing to pay $200 m for those statistical lives. So it requires the poor to actually pay a cost they cannot afford: For them, more basic priorities (perhaps food and shelter) take precedence over the reduction in risks, whereas the rich can afford the cost.

The only way out of this dilemma and to make the seemingly right choice in both comparisons (A over B and D over C) is to consider both heterogeneity in willingness to pay and distributional objectives in the analysis.