ROBİN HAHNEL'İN BAKIŞ AÇISINDAN FAYDA MALİYET ANALİZİ

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 69, 17 - 26

Ebru Bilgin

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1480433

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fayda maliyet analizi yaklaşımını Robin Hahnel’in bakış açısından irdelemektir. İlgili kapsamda öncelikle fayda maliyet analizi yaklaşımının tarihçesi ve gelişimi araştırılmakta; daha sonra analize getirilen eleştiriler aktarılmaktadır. Son tahlilde, Hahnel’in analize getirdiği yenilikçi bakış açısı paylaşılmaktadır. Çalışma, fayda maliyet analizinin sadece ekonomik değil, aynı zamanda ekolojik ve sosyal boyutları da içerecek şekilde genişletilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Hahnel’in eleştirileri, fayda maliyet analizinin doğal çevrenin nicel değerlendirilmesine odaklanarak, çevrenin korunmasını sadece ekonomik bir çerçevede ele almanın yetersiz kaldığını göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, fayda maliyet analizinin, çevre politikalarının daha etkin uygulanabilmesi için ekonomik, ekolojik ve sosyal değerleri entegre edecek şekilde genişletilmesinin zorunlu olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, çevresel ve sosyal boyutların yeterince dikkate alınmamasına yol açan mevcut uygulamaların üstesinden gelmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fayda-Maliyet Analizi, Çevre, Çevresel Fayda-Maliyet Analizi

Etik Beyan

Etik kurul kararı gerektirmemektedir.

Teşekkür

Çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecindeki katkılarından dolayı Prof. Dr. İ. Erdem SEÇİLMİŞ'e teşekkürlerimi sunarım.

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FROM ROBIN HAHNEL’S PERSPECTIVE

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-benefit analysis approach from the perspective of Robin Hahnel. Initially, the history and development of the cost-benefit analysis approach are explored; subsequently, the criticisms brought to the analysis are presented. Ultimately, R. Hahnel’s innovative perspective on the analysis is shared. The study emphasizes that cost-benefit analysis should not only incorporate economic dimensions but also ecological and social aspects. Hahnel’s critiques illustrate that focusing cost-benefit analysis solely on the quantitative evaluation of the natural environment, and addressing environmental protection only within an economic framework, is insufficient. Consequently, it is concluded that cost-benefit analysis must be expanded to integrate economic, ecological, and social values to more effectively implement environmental policies. This approach aims to overcome current practices that fail to adequately consider environmental and social dimensions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environment, Cost-benefit analysis, Environmental cost-benefit analysis

Kaynakça

• Ackerman, F. ve Heinzerling, L. (2001). Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 15-53.
• Akalın, G. (2005). Kamu ekonomisi. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Albert, M. ve Hahnel, R. (1994). Geleceğe bakmak: 21. yüzyıl için katılımcı ekonomi. Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Atkinson, G., ve Mourato, S. (2008). Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 317-344.
• Babula, M. ve Muschert, G. (2020). Post-materialist waste: a study of Turkey’s importation of rubbish. Open Journal for Sociological Studies, 4(2), 114-126.
• Beder, S. (2011). Environmental economics and ecological economics: The contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environmental Conservation, 38(2), 140-150.
• Boyce, J. K. (2002). The political economy of environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Daly, H. (1995). Summary of the Economic Growth Debate: What Some Economists Have Learned but Many Have Not. Rajaraman Krishnan, Jonathan Harris ve Neva Goodwin, A Survey of Ecological Economics içinde, (s. 125-128) Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Eckstein, O. (1958). Water resources development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• El Serafy, S. (1991). The Environment as Capital, in Ecological Economics, içinde (77-98). Robert Costanza, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Feuillette, S., Levrel, H., Boeuf, B., Blanquart, S., Gorin, O., Monaco, G. and Robichon, S. (2016). The use of cost–benefit analysis in environmental policies: Some issues raised by the water framework directive implementation in France. Environmental Science & Policy, 57(1), 79-85.
• Fleurbaey, M., Kartha, S., Bolwig, S., Chee, Y.L., Chen, Y., Corbera, E., … Sagar, A.D., (2014). Sustainable development and equity. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group ııı to the fifth assessment report of the ıntergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press,
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Cost overruns and demand shortfalls in urban rail and other infrastructure. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30(1), 9-30.
• Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris, M. K. and Buhl, S. L. (2004). What causes cost overrun in transport infrastructure projects?, Transport Reviews, 24(2), 3-18.
• Gerald, B. K. (1998). Financial evaluation tools for smallholder forestry: A methodological comparison of two forms of cost-benefit analysis and optimisation, International Tree Crops Journal, 9(4), 233-246, DOI: 10.1080/01435698.1998.9752981
• Gerber, J. F., Adaman, F., Avcı, D., Aydın, C. I., Ojo, G.U., Özkaynak, B., … Yánez, I., (2014). Socio-Environmental Valuation and Liabilities: What Strategies for EJOs. EJOLT Report No. 13, 108.
• Gramlich, E. M. (1981). Cost-benefit analysis of government programs, Prentice-Hall Int, USA.
• Hahnel, R. (2014). Yeşil iktisat, İstanbul: BGST yayınları.
• Hahnel, R. ve Wright, E. O. (2016). Alternatives to capitalism: Proposals for a democratic economy. Londra: Verso Books.
• Hahnel, R. (2016). Income Distribution and Environmental Sustainability: A Sraffian Approach. Routledge.
• Hanley, N. ve Spash, C. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Hansjürgens, B. (2004). Economic valuation through cost-benefit analysis–possibilities and limitations. Toxicology, 205(3), 241-252.
• Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Economics & Philosophy, 23(2), 163-183.
• Hindriks, J. ve Myles, G. D. (2013). Intermediate public economics. Cambridge: MIT press.
• IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. In Press.
• Johansson, P. O. (1993). Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kapp, K. W. (1950). The social costs of private enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kaya, G. (2010). Türkiye’de Çevresel Değer Belirleme Araştırmaları, Darboğazlar ve Öneriler (Poster bildiri). Ekoloji 2010 Sempozyumu, 5-7 Mayıs 2010.
• Kolstad, C., Urama, K., Broome, J., Bruvoll, A., Cariño-Olvera, M., Fullerton, D., ... Mundaca, L. (2014). Social, economic and ethical concepts and methods. In Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change (ss. 173-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Krutilla, J. and Eckstein, O. (1958). Multiple purpose river development, studies in applied economic analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
• Livermore, M. A. ve Revesz, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). The globalization of cost-benefit analysis in environmental policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Löffler, K. (2021). Social discounting, social costs of carbon, and their use in energy system models. Environmental Research Letters, 16(10), 104-151.
• Mackie, Mackie, P. and Nellthorp, J. (2001). Cost–benefit analysis in transport. In Handbook of transport systems and traffic control (Vol. 3, pp. 143-174). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D. and Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(3), 221-234.
• Masur, J. S. and Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate regulation and the limits of cost-benefit analysis. California Law Review, 99(6). 15-57.
• McKean, R. (1958). Efficiency in government through systems analysis, with emphasis on water resource development, New York: JohnWiley.
• Mishan, E. J. ve Quah, E. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis. Londra: Routledge.
• Munda, G. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis in integrated environmental assessment: some methodological issues. Ecological economics, 19(2), 157-168.
• O’Mahony, T. (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: The time horizon is of the essence. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 89(1), 587-593.
• O’Neill, J. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis, rationality and the plurality of values. The Ecologist, 26(3), 98-104.
• OECD. (2018). Cost-Benefit analysis and the environment: further developments and policy use. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-en
• Pearce, D. (1998). Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(4), 84-100.
• Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/2867
• Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. B. (1994). Blueprint for a green economy. Londra: Earthscan Publications.
• Pearce, D. W. (1971). Cost-benefit analysis. (Çev: A. L. Alpay, Akbank Yayınları), London, Macmillan.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rosen, H. S. (2004). Public finance. In the encyclopedia of public choice. Springer, Boston, MA.
• Roser, M. ve Hasell, J. (2021). The fight against global poverty: 200 years of progress and still a very long way to go. No Poverty, 13(1). 36-42.
• Sartori, D., Catalano, G., Genco, M., Pancotti, C., Sirtori, E., Vignetti, S. and Del Bo, C. (2014). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of ınvestment project: Economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014-2020. european commission directorate general for regional and urban policy. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf
• Sen, A. K., (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2): 931-952.
• Sewell, W. R. D., Davis, J., Scott, A.D. and Ross, D. W. (1965). Guide to benefit–cost analysis, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.
• Shapiro, C., Varian, H. R. and Carl, S. (1998). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
• Şataf, C. (2014). Fayda-maliyet analizinde uygulamada karşılaşılan güçlükler: fayda ve maliyetin belirlenebilme sorunu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 107-123.
• Tarlock, A. D. (1992). Environmental protection: the potential misfit between equity and efficiency. University of Colorado Law Review, 63(3), 871-889.
• Uzunyayla, F. (2018). An examination of the methods and discussions on estimation of monetary value of ecosystem services. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 28(105), 19-61.
• Venditti, A. (2023). High-performance and miniature greenhouse gas sensor for drone-based remote sensing. Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
• Vickerman, R. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1068/b32112
• Voorhees, S. S., Sakai, R. and Araki, S. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis methods for assessing air pollution control programs in urban environments- A review. Environ Health Prev Med 6(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897948