Multi-Criteria Analysis: "Good Enough" for Government Work?

Leo Dobes

Jeff Bennett[1]

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
The emergence of cost-benefit analysis
The theory and practice of cost-benefit analysis
Multi-criteria analysis: atheoretical and impractical
Some comparisons: cost-benefit analysis versus multi-criteria analysis
Whose perspective?
Choice of impacts or effects of government policies and actions
Alternative policies
Valuation of effects or merits of proposals
Efficiency versus equity
Why multi-criteria analysis is fundamentally flawed
Analytical rigour
Implications for government
Conclusions
References

Abstract

Multi-criteria analysis (including Triple Bottom Line approaches) is fundamentally flawed in principle, and is open to abuse by special-interest groups. Its increased use poses a significant risk to the quality of policy formulation by Australian governments.




[1] Crawford School of Economics and Government at The Australian National University. Contact for correspondence: Leo.Dobes@anu.edu.au. The authors wish to thank three anonymous referees and the editor for helpful comment and advice on an earlier draft. The title of the paper alludes to a tongue-in-cheek response of a consultant who when queried by one of the authors about the standard of some modelling being undertaken for a government department replied, 'It is good enough for government work'.