Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
Like the 19th-century voyager, the modern engineer prizes redundancy, in the form of backup and failsafe mechanisms (most would consider the standard triplicate provision to be adequate). Economists, however, privilege efficiency over redundancy an approach that, despite its obvious merits, also has shortcomings.When it comes to investment decisions, economists focus on the most efficient use of resources, as revealed by cost-benefit analysis.Efficiency isn't everything, and the long-term benefits of an investment are not always clear from the start.Part of the challenge in assessing major or (potentially) iconic investment projects is that standard cost-benefit analysis does not work for projects that are likely to change significantly the economy's growth rate, as the Erie Canal did, by stimulating trade.Economists should recognize the limitations of cost-benefit analysis and offer a more rigorous method for analyzing the nonmarginal, nonlinear feedback mechanisms that affect major investments. More broadly, efficiency cannot be the sole criterion for organizing the economy.
Lies, damned lies and the future of algorithmic decision-making
Three cheers for the economic
benefits of regulation!
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE