Interesting post relating to Cost benefit Analysis:
Recently the driver of a bus refused to let me on unless
my
baby buggy was folded up. He then sped on, leaving me stranded.� It would have taken only a
moment to fold up the buggy. Is this efficient?
Mary McLaren,
Hackney, London
Dear Ms McLaren,
I'm sorry to hear of your distressing experience but the
driver did the right thing. You say it would have taken a moment to fold up the
buggy. My generous estimate is that you would have delayed the bus by at least
30 seconds. London buses seat up to 75, plus those standing. Let us be
conservative and say that there were only 40 passengers on it. By waiting for
you to board with your baby and buggy, the bus would have delayed 40 people for
30 seconds, an aggregate delay of 20 minutes.
You and your baby should have picked up the next bus in 'about six to 10 minutes, so the aggregate delay there is around 16 minutes. Sixteen minutes is less than 20 minutes, so the driver maximized social welfare by refusing to wait.
Of course, not every political philosopher accepts the tools
of cost-benefit analysis. The two modern greats, John Rawls and Robert Nozick,
have different views.
Rawls is concerned with the welfare of the worst-off in
society: you, standing at the bus stop rather than the happy multitude already
on the bus. Rawls presumably believes no delay is too great to allow you to get
your baby on the bus.
Nozick, on the other hand, would say that the rules were
clear and you did not follow them. Regrettable as your self-inflicted plight
was, perhaps you will be more considerate of other passengers in future.
Tim Harford
Dear Economist columnist
Resolving readers�
dilemmas with the tools of Adam Smith
Cheers
-Mazaher
No comments:
Post a Comment