Abstract

A challenge for cost-benefit analysis is that it ignores ethical values such as justice, fairness, and equity. One standard response is to regard CBA results as just one factor in a more complex decision-process where ethical and democratic factors are also considered. This paper considers an alternative response: extending CBA so that it takes into account not only self-interested input but also moral preferences such as a ‘taste’ for fairness. Drawing on existing research and the example of resource allocation, the paper develops and analyzes objections to extended CBA. Evaluation of these objections, the paper shows, depends on how the original challenge is interpreted and how the problem of ‘ignoring’ ethical values is understood. While some interpretations lead to an impasse between defenders and critics of extended CBA, the paper proposes a novel interpretation – focused on political representationality – and showcases the limits of CBA as a coherent response.