Anti-social welfare functions: a reply to Hansen et al.
We could reasonably expect society to give at least the same weight to the marginal utility of the poor as to the rich, and to the marginal utility of the ill as compared to the healthy. Whilst Hansen et al. [Journal of Health Economics (2004)], may be said to link CEA and CBA within a welfarist framework, the assumptions they require are inconsistent with these types of ethical preferences. Thus, the degree to which they employ a reasonable social welfare function is doubtful. This paper argues that any link between CEA and CBA will occur not within a welfarist framework but instead within a non-welfarist one in which it is unlikely that CBA results could be easily transformed into cost-effectiveness ratios.
Edlin
Richard
R
Sheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. r.edlin@sheffield.ac.uk
D001294:Attitude to Health; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005382:Financing, Personal; D006801:Humans; D008017:Life Expectancy; D017059:Models, Econometric; D017150:Public Sector / Q000191:economics; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D012306:Risk; D012946:Social Welfare / Q000191:economics*; D026712:Value of Life / Q000191:economics