Abstract
Decisions for evaluating public project investment most frequently use benefit-cost analysis. The procedure rests on the assumption that an efficient alternative should be selected that maximizes the net aggregate benefits to society as a whole. However, this selection results in projects that invariably provide different levels of benefits to members of a community, thus contravening the principles of equity or distributive justice. Six strategies for dealing with the problem of distributive justice are explored and examined and then applied in a common setting to a public project where several efficient alternatives are proposed. While this research is not prompted by the desire to proclaim a winner from among the strategies, it is evident that some strategies make heroic attempts to reduce inequity. Issues connected with obtaining public consensus are also briefly mentioned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
