Abstract
The Kaldor–Hicks (KH) criterion has long been the standard for benefit–cost analysis, but it has also been widely criticized for ignoring equity and, arguably, moral sentiments in general. We suggest replacing KH with an aggregate measure called KHM, where the M stands for moral sentiments. KHM simply adds to the traditional KH criterion the requirement that any good for which there is a willingness to pay or accept count as an economic good. This suggested expansion of KH, however, must confront objections to counting moral sentiments in general and non-paternalistic altruism in particular. We show that these concerns are unwarranted and suggest that the KHM criterion is superior to KH because it provides better information.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
