Costbenet analysis

Costbenet analysis (CBA), sometimes called

benetcost analysis (BCA), is a systematic approach
to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives that satisfy transactions, activities or functional
requirements for a business. It is a technique that is used
to determine options that provide the best approach for
the adoption and practice in terms of benets in labor,
time and cost savings etc.[1] The CBA is also dened
as a systematic process for calculating and comparing
benets and costs of a project, decision or government
policy (hereafter, project).

status quo by implementing the alternative with the lowest costbenet ratio can improve Pareto eciency.[4] An
analyst using CBA should recognize that perfect appraisal
of all present and future costs and benets is dicult, and
while CBA can oer a well-educated estimate of the best
alternative, perfection in terms of economic eciency
and social welfare are not guaranteed.[5]

Broadly, CBA has two purposes:

The following is a list of steps that comprise a generic

costbenet analysis.[6]

2 Process

1. To determine if it is a sound investment/decision

(justication/feasibility),

1. List alternative projects/programs.

2. To provide a basis for comparing projects. It involves comparing the total expected cost of each
option against the total expected benets, to see
whether the benets outweigh the costs, and by how
much.[2]

2. List stakeholders.
3. Select measurement(s) and measure all cost/benet
elements.
4. Predict outcome of cost and benets over relevant
time period.

CBA is related to, but distinct from cost-eectiveness

analysis. In CBA, benets and costs are expressed in
monetary terms, and are adjusted for the time value of
money, so that all ows of benets and ows of project
costs over time (which tend to occur at dierent points in
time) are expressed on a common basis in terms of their
"net present value.

5. Convert all costs and benets into a common currency.

6. Apply discount rate.
7. Calculate net present value of project options.

Closely related, but slightly dierent, formal techniques

include cost-eectiveness analysis, costutility analysis,
riskbenet analysis, economic impact analysis, scal impact analysis, and Social return on investment (SROI)
analysis.

8. Perform sensitivity analysis.

9. Adopt recommended choice.

3 Evaluation
1

Theory

CBA attempts to measure the positive or negative consequences of a project, which may include:

Costbenet analysis is often used by governments and

other organizations, such as private sector businesses, to
1. Eects on users or participants
appraise the desirability of a given policy. It is an analysis
of the expected balance of benets and costs, including an
2. Eects on non-users or non-participants
account of foregone alternatives and the status quo. CBA
3. Externality eects
helps predict whether the benets of a policy outweigh
its costs, and by how much relative to other alternatives
4. Option value or other social benets.
(i.e. one can rank alternate policies in terms of the cost
[3]
benet ratio). Generally, accurate costbenet analysis
identies choices that increase welfare from a utilitarian A similar breakdown is employed in environmental analperspective. Assuming an accurate CBA, changing the ysis of total economic value. Both costs and benets
1

can be diverse. Financial costs tend to be most thoroughly represented in cost-benet analyses due to relatively abundant market data. The net benets of a project
may incorporate cost savings or public willingness to pay
compensation (implying the public has no legal right to
the benets of the policy) or willingness to accept compensation (implying the public has a right to the benets
of the policy) for the welfare change resulting from the
policy. The guiding principle of evaluating benets is to
list all (categories of) parties aected by an intervention
and add the (positive or negative) value, usually monetary, that they ascribe to its eect on their welfare.
The actual compensation an individual would require to
have their welfare unchanged by a policy is inexact at
best. Surveys (stated preference techniques) or market
behavior (revealed preference techniques) are often used
to estimate the compensation associated with a policy;
however, survey respondents often have strong incentives
to misreport their true preferences and market behavior
does not provide any information about important nonmarket welfare impacts.

HISTORY

humans attraction to time inconsistencyvaluing money

that they receive today more than money they get in the
future. The choice makes a large dierence in assessing interventions with long-term eects. One issue is the
equity premium puzzle, in which long-term returns on equities may be rather higher than they should be. If so
then arguably market rates of return should not be used
to determine a discount rate, as doing so would have the
eect of undervaluing the distant future (e.g. climate
change).[9]

5 Risk and uncertainty

Risk associated with project outcomes is usually handled

using probability theory. This can be factored into the
discount rate (to have uncertainty increasing over time),
but is usually considered separately. Particular consideration is often given to risk aversionthe preference for
avoiding loss over achieving gain. Expected return calculations do not account for the detrimental eect of uncerOne controversy is valuing a human life, e.g. when assess- tainty.
ing road safety measures or life-saving medicines. How- Uncertainty in CBA parameters (as opposed to risk of
ever, this can sometimes be avoided by using the related project failure etc.) can be evaluated using a sensitivity
technique of cost-utility analysis, in which benets are analysis, which shows how results respond to parameter
expressed in non-monetary units such as quality-adjusted changes. Alternatively a more formal risk analysis can be
life years. For example, road safety can be measured undertaken using Monte Carlo simulations.[10]
in terms of cost per life saved, without formally placing a nancial value on the life. However, such nonmonetary metrics have limited usefulness for evaluating 6 History
policies with substantially dierent outcomes. Additionally, many other benets may accrue from the policy, and
The concept of CBA dates back to an 1848 article by
metrics such as 'cost per life saved' may lead to a subJules Dupuit and was formalized in subsequent works
stantially dierent ranking of alternatives than traditional
by Alfred Marshall. The Corps of Engineers initiated
costbenet analysis.
the use of CBA in the US, after the Federal NavigaAnother controversy is valuing the environment, which tion Act of 1936 eectively required costbenet analyin the 21st century is typically assessed by valuing sis for proposed federal waterway infrastructure.[11] The
ecosystem services to humans, such as air and water qual- Flood Control Act of 1939 was instrumental in establishity and pollution.[7] Monetary values may also be as- ing CBA as federal policy. It demanded that the benets
signed to other intangible eects such as business reputa- to whomever they accrue [be] in excess of the estimated
tion, market penetration, or long-term enterprise strategy costs.[12]
alignment.

6.1 Public policy

Time and discounting

CBA usually tries to put all relevant costs and benets on

a common temporal footing using time value of money
calculations. This is often done by converting the future expected streams of costs and benets into a present
value amount using a discount rate. Empirical studies and
a technical framework suggest that in reality, people do
discount the future like this.[8]

The application for broader public policy started from the

work of Otto Eckstein,[13] who in 1958 laid out a welfare economics foundation for CBA and its application
for water resource development. Over the 1960s, CBA
was applied in the US for water quality,[14] recreation
travel,[15] and land conservation.[16] During this period,
the concept of option value was developed to represent
the non-tangible value of preserving resources such as national parks.[17]

The choice of discount rate is subjective. A smaller rate CBA was later expanded to address both intangible and
values future generations equally with the current gener- tangible benets of public policies relating to mental
ation. Larger rates (e.g. a market rate of return) reects illness,[18] substance abuse,[19] college education,[20] and

6.3

CBA and Regulation under various US Administrations

gramme, reviewed transport appraisal guidance across

EU member states and found that signicant dierences
exist between countries.[26] HEATCOs aim was to develop guidelines to harmonise transport appraisal practice
across the EU.[27]
Transport Canada promoted the use of CBA for major transport investments with the 1994 issuance of its
Guidebook.[28]
In the US, both federal and state transport departments
commonly apply CBA, using a variety of available software tools including HERS, BCA.Net, StatBenCost,
Cal-BC, and TREDIS. Guides are available from the
Federal Highway Administration,[29][30] Federal Aviation Administration,[31] Minnesota Department of Transportation,[32] California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans),[33] and the Transportation Research Board
Transportation Economics Committee.[34]

6.3 CBA and Regulation under various US

Administrations

The French engineer and economist Jules Dupuit, credited with

the creation of costbenet analysis.

chemical waste policies.[21] In the US, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 rst required the application of CBA for regulatory programs, and since
then, other governments have enacted similar rules.
Government guidebooks for the application of CBA to
public policies include the Canadian guide for regulatory analysis,[22] Australian guide for regulation and
nance,[23] US guide for health care programs,[24] and US
guide for emergency management programs.[25]

6.2

Transportation investment

The increased usage of CBA in the US regulatory process is often associated with President Ronald Reagan's
administration. Though the use of CBA in US policy
making dating back many decades, Reagans Executive
Order 12291 mandated the use of CBA in the regulatory
process. Reagan campaigned on a deregulation platform,
and once he took oce in 1981 quickly issued this EO,
which vested the Oce of Information and Regulatory
Aairs (OIRA) with the authority to review agency regulations and required federal agencies to produce regulatory impact analyses when the annual impact could be
estimated over $100M. Shortly thereafter, in the 1980s,
academic and institutional critiques of CBA started to
emerge. Three main criticisms[35] were:
1. That CBA could be used for political goals. Debates
on the merits of cost and benet comparisons can
be used to sidestep political or philosophical goals,
rules and regulations.

CBA application for transport investment started in the

UK, with the M1 motorway project in 1960. It was
2. That CBA is inherently anti-regulatory, therefore
later applied on many projects including London Undernot a neutral analysis tool. This is an ethical arguground's Victoria line. Later, the New Approach to Apment: that the monetization of policy impacts is an
praisal (NATA) was introduced by the then Department
inappropriate tool for assessing things such as morfor Transport, Environment and the Regions. This pretality risks and distributional impacts.
sented costbenet results and detailed environmental
impact assessments in a balanced way. NATA was rst
3. That the length of time necessary to complete CBA
applied to national road schemes in the 1998 Roads Recan create signicant delays, which can impede polview but subsequently rolled out to all transport modes.
icy regulations.
As of 2011 it was a cornerstone of transport appraisal in
the UK and is maintained and developed by the Depart- These criticisms continued through the 1990s under the
ment for Transport.
Clinton administration, who furthered the anti-regulatory
The EU's 'Developing Harmonised European Ap- environment through his Executive Order 12866.[36] EO
proaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment' 12866 changed some of Reagans language, requiring
(HEATCO) project, part of its Sixth Framework Pro- benets to justify, rather than exceed costs, and added

reduction of discrimination or bias as one of the benets to be analyzed. Criticisms of aspects of CBA, including uncertainly valuations, discounting future values,
and the calculation of risk, were used to argue that CBA
should play no part in the regulatory process.[37] The use
of CBA in the regulatory process continues today under the Obama administration, though the debate over its
practical and objective value continues. Some analysts
oppose the use of CBA in policy making, while those in
favor of its use favor improvements to the analysis and
calculations.

REFERENCES

by increasing energy eciency. Using cost-eectiveness

analysis is less laborious and time-consuming as it does
not involve the monetization of outcomes, which can be
dicult in some cases.[41]

In environmental and occupational health regulation, it

has been argued that if modern costbenet analyses had
been applied prospectively to decisions such as whether
to mandate the removal of lead from gasoline, build the
Hoover Dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado, and
regulate workers exposure to vinyl chloride, these measures would not have been implemented even though they
are considered to be highly successful in retrospect.[42]
The Clean Air Act has been cited in retrospective studies
7 Accuracy
as a case where benets exceeded costs, but the knowledge of the benets (attributable largely to the benets
The value of a costbenet analysis depends on the accu- of reducing particulate pollution) was not available until
racy of the individual cost and benet estimates. Com- many years later.[42]
parative studies indicate that such estimates are often
awed, preventing improvements in Pareto and KaldorHicks eciency. Causes of these inaccuracies include:
8 See also
1. Overreliance on data from past projects (often differing markedly in function or size and the skill levels of the team members)

Guns versus butter model

2. Use of subjective impressions by assessment team

members

Have ones cake and eat it too

3. Inappropriate use of heuristics to derive money cost

of the intangible elements
4. Conrmation bias among project supporters (looking for reasons to proceed).
Interest groups may attempt to include or exclude significant costs from an analysis to inuence the outcome.[38]
In the case of the Ford Pinto (where, because of design
aws, the Pinto was liable to burst into ames in a rearimpact collision), the companys decision was not to issue a recall. Fords costbenet analysis had estimated
that based on the number of cars in use and the probable
accident rate, deaths due to the design aw would cost it
about $49.5 million to settle wrongful death lawsuits versus recall costs of $137.5 million. Ford overlooked (or
considered insignicant) the costs of the negative publicity that would result, which forced a recall and damaged
sales.[39]
In health economics, some analysts think costbenet
analysis can be an inadequate measure because
willingness-to-pay methods of determining the value
of human life can be inuenced by income level. They
support use of variants such as costutility analysis and
quality-adjusted life year to analyze the eects of health
policies.[40]
For some environmental eects cost-benet analysis can
be substituted with cost-eectiveness analysis. This is especially true when there is only one type of physical outcome that is sought, such as the reduction of energy use

Business case

Opportunity cost
Scarcity
Social impact assessment
Tax choice
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
Trade-o

9 References
[1] David, Rodreck; Ngulube, Patrick; Dube, Adock (16 July
2013). A cost-benet analysis of document management
strategies used at a nancial institution in Zimbabwe: A
case study. SA Journal of Information Management 15
(2). doi:10.4102/sajim.v15i2.540.
[2] Archived October 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
[3] Cellini, Stephanie Riegg; Kee, James Edwin. CostEectiveness and Cost-Benet Analysis (PDF).
[4] http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/docs/Decision-Rules.
pdf
[5] Weimer, D.; Vining, A. (2005). Policy Analysis: Concepts
and Practice (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-183001-5.
[6] Boardman, N. E. (2006). Cost-benet Analysis: Concepts
and Practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall. ISBN 0-13-143583-3.

[7] Campbell, Harry F.; Brown, Richard (2003). Valuing Traded and Non-Traded Commodities in Benet-Cost
Analysis. Benet-Cost Analysis: Financial and Economic
Appraisal using Spreadsheets. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-52898-4. Ch. 8 provides
a useful discussion of non-market valuation methods for
CBA.
[8] Dunn, William N. (2009). Public Policy Analysis: An
Introduction. New York: Longman. ISBN 978-0-13615554-6.
[9] Newell, R. G. (2003). Discounting the Distant Future:
How Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase Valuations?".
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46
(1): 5271. doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00031-1.
[10] Campbell, Harry F.; Brown, Richard (2003). Incorporating Risk in Benet-Cost Analysis. Benet-Cost Analysis: Financial and Economic Appraisal using Spreadsheets.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-52152898-4. Ch. 9 provides a useful discussion of sensitivity
analysis and risk modelling in CBA.
[11] History of Benet-Cost Analysis (PDF). Proceedings of
the 2006 Cost Benet Conference.
[12] Guess, George M.; Farnham, Paul G. (2000). Cases in
Public Policy Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press. pp. 304308. ISBN 0-87840-768-5.
[13] Eckstein, Otto (1958). Water Resource Development: The
Economics of Project Evaluation. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
[14] Kneese, A. V. (1964). The Economics of Regional Water
Quality Management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
[15] Clawson, M.; Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
[16] Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation Reconsidered.
American Economic Review 57 (4): 777786. JSTOR
1815368.
[17] Weisbrod, Burton A. (1964). Collective-Consumption
Services
of
Individual-Consumption
Goods.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 78 (3): 471477.
doi:10.2307/1879478.
[18] Weisbrod, Burton A. (1981). Benet-Cost Analysis
of a Controlled Experiment: Treating the Mentally Ill.
Journal of Human Resources 16 (4): 523548. JSTOR
145235.
[19] Plotnick, Robert D. (1994). Applying Benet-Cost
Analysis to Substance Abuse Prevention Programs. International Journal of the Addictions 29 (3): 339359.
doi:10.3109/10826089409047385.
[20] Weisbrod, Burton A.; Hansen, W. Lee (1969). Benets,
Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education. Markham.
[21] Moll, K. S.; et al. (1975). Hazardous wastes: A RiskBenet Framework Applied to Cadmium and Asbestos.
Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.

[22] Canadian CostBenet Guide: Regulatory Proposals,

Treasury Canada, 2007.
[23] Australian Government, 2006. Introduction to Cost
Benet Analysis and Alternative Evaluation Methodologies and Handbook of CostBenet Analysis, Finance Circular 2006/01. http://www.finance.gov.au/
publications/finance-circulars/2006/01.html
[24] US Department of Health and Human Services,
1993.
Feasibility, Alternatives, And Cost/Benet
Analysis Guide, Administration for Children and
Families, and Health Care Finance Administration.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/
cbaguide/index.htm
[25] Federal Emergency Management Administration, 1022.
Guide to Benet Cost Analysis. http://www.fema.gov/
government/grant/bca.shtm
[26] HEATCO project site. Heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de. Retrieved 2013-04-21.
[27] Guide to Cost-Benet Analysis of Major Projects. Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission,
2008.
[28] Guide to Benet-Cost Analysis in Transport Canada.
Transport Canada. Economic Evaluation Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, 1994
[29] US Federal Highway Administration: Economic Analysis
Primer: Benet-Cost Analysis 2003
[30] US Federal Highway Administration: Cost-Benet Forecasting Toolbox for Highways, Circa 2001
[31] US Federal Aviation Administration: Airport BenetCost Analysis Guidance, 1999
[32] Minnesota Department of Transportation: Benet Cost
Analysis. MN DOT Oce of Investment Management
[33] California Department of Transportation: Benet-Cost
Analysis Guide for Transportation Planning
[34] Transportation Research Board, Transportation Economics Committee: Transportation Benet-Cost Analysis
[35] http://regulation.huji.ac.il/papers/jp5.pdf
[36] http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/
2646.html
[37] Heinzerling, L. (2000), 'The Rights of Statistical People',
Harvard Environmental Law Review 24, 189-208.
[38] Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann
(2011). Technox: Why Technology Wont Save Us or the
Environment, Chapter 8, The Positive Biases of Technology Assessments and Cost Benet Analyses, New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia,
Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
[39] Ford Fuel Fires. Archived from the original on July 15,
2011. Retrieved 29 December 2011.

11

[40] Phelps, Charles (2009). Health Economics (4th ed.).

New York: Pearson/Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-32159457-0.
[41] Pekka Tuominen, Francesco Reda, Waled Dawoud,
Bahaa Elboshy, Ghada Elshafei, Abdelazim Negm:
Economic Appraisal of Energy Eciency in Buildings
Using Cost-eectiveness Assessment. Procedia Economics and Finance, Volume 21, 2015, Pages 422430.
[42] Ackerman; et al. (2005). Applying Cost-Benet to Past
Decisions: Was Environmental Protection Ever a Good
Idea?". Administrative Law Review 57: 155.

10

Further reading

Campbell, Harry; Brown, Richard (2003). BenetCost Analysis: Financial and Economic Appraisal
Using Spreadsheets. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-82146-0.
Chakravarty, Sukhamoy (1987). Cost-benet analysis. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics 1. London: Macmillan. pp. 687690. ISBN
0-333-37235-2.
David, R., Ngulube, P. & Dube, A., 2013, A costbenet analysis of document management strategies used at a nancial institution in Zimbabwe: A
case study, SA Journal of Information Management
15(2), Art. #540, 10 pages. http://www.sajim.co.
za/index.php/SAJIM/article/view/540/640
Dupuit, Jules (1969). On the Measurement of the
Utility of Public Works. In Arrow, Kenneth J.;
Scitovsky, Tibor. Readings in Welfare Economics.
London: Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-04-338038-7.
Eckstein, Otto (1958). Water-resource Development: The Economics of Project Evaluation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Folland, Sherman; Goodman, Allen C.; Stano,
Miron (2007). The Economics of Heath and Health
Care (Fifth ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
pp. 8384. ISBN 978-0-13-227942-0.
Ferrara, A. (2010). Cost-Benet Analysis of MultiLevel Government: The Case of EU Cohesion Policy and US Federal Investment Policies. London and
New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-56821-0.
Frank, Robert H. (2000). Why is Cost-Benet
Analysis so Controversial?". Journal of Legal Studies 29 (S2): 913930. doi:10.1086/468099.
Hirshleifer, Jack (1960). Water Supply: Economics,
Technology, and Policy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann

(2011). Technox: Why Technology Wont Save Us
or the Environment, Chapter 8, The Positive Biases
of Technology Assessments and Cost Benet Analyses, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island,
British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464
pp.
Maass, Arthur, ed. (1962). Design of Waterresource Systems: New Techniques for Relating Economic Objectives, Engineering Analysis, and Governmental Planning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McKean, Roland N. (1958). Eciency in Government through Systems Analysis: With Emphasis on
Water Resources Development. New York: Wiley.
Nas, Tevk F. (1996). Cost-Benet Analysis: Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ISBN 0-8039-7133-8.
Portney, Paul R. (2008). Benet-Cost Analysis.
In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia
of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of
Economics and Liberty. ISBN 978-0-86597-665-8.
Richardson, Henry S. (2000). The Stupidity of the
Cost-Benet Analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29
(S2): 9711003. doi:10.1086/468102.
Quigley, John; Walls, Lesley (2003). Cost-Benet
Modelling for Reliability Growth. Journal of the
Operational Research Society 54 (12): 12341241.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601633.
Sen, Amartya (2000). The Discipline of CostBenet Analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 29 (S2):
931952. doi:10.1086/468100.

11 External links
Benet-Cost Analysis Center at the University of
Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs
Intro to Cost-Benet Analysis

12
12.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Costbenet analysis Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis?oldid=716748646 Contributors: Edward,

Kku, Pde, Pcb21, Ronz, Silversh, Mydogategodshat, Caknuck, Tim Bell, Cutler, Alan Liefting, Giftlite, Bnn, Alison, Craigwb, Quinwound, Meara, Christopherlin, Utcursch, Alotau, Imroy, Discospinster, LindsayH, Gobimurali, Bender235, Aaronbrick, Femto, Cretog8, Maurreen, The shaggy one, Alansohn, Gary, Arthena, John Quiggin, Pioneer-12, Mattbrundage, DavidCane, BD2412, TobyJ,
Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, MZMcBride, Yamamoto Ichiro, Wragge, RobotE, Michael Slone, CambridgeBayWeather, Tungsten, Tony1, Bucketsofg, Eclipsed, Yonidebest, Douglaspatton, Allens, SmackBot, Phlegethon, Andy M. Wang, Chris the speller, MartinPoulter, Miquonranger03, Normxxx, Richard001, Kuru, Majorclanger, Grumpyyoungman01, Beetstra, RichardF, Hu12, Levineps, White Ash, Markbassett, Eastlaw, Thomasmeeks, Kraky, JohnInDC, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Sonderbro, Laidi~enwiki, A3RO, Mentisto, Seaphoto, Bigglesjames, Tmopkisn, Jacqke, Spencer, Lfstevens, BK, Ph.eyes, Kaoeki, Hubbardaie, David Eppstein, Dlindbloom, Rettetast, Redian,
J.delanoy, Pilgaard, Titusmars, Samwaltersdc, TXiKiBoT, Swanseaeu1, Katoa, SueHay, GcSwRhIc, Littlealien182, Rwgreen1173, SieBot,
Dluther31, Flyer22 Reborn, Pattigustafson, Pm master, Millstream3, Alanadexter, JusticeIvory, NVar, JL-Bot, ClueBot, Waldoemerson,
ImperfectlyInformed, Patrick Grady, M4gnum0n, Noneforall, Nagika, Ankeet.shah, Floul1, Ps07swt, Roxy the dog, Jytdog, Cheapskate08,
Fede.Campana, Stickee, Addbot, Mortense, Don'tKnowItAtAll, Justbr, Binary TSO, Diptanshu.D, Daicaregos, Misunderestimator, Jarble,
Luckas-bot, Yobot, Fraggle81, AnomieBOT, Galoubet, Kingpin13, Xqbot, Srich32977, Econo67a, RibotBOT, Amaury, Doulos Christos,
4RugbyRd, Jamesooders, I dream of horses, LauraHale, Serols, Herbs505, Lotje, Vrenator, Vanished user aoiowaiuyr894isdik43, Mean
as custard, EmausBot, Dewritech, Dnazip, 7Adrian7, Xerographica, Orange Suede Sofa, ClueBot NG, Blumandarin, UWEvansSchool,
Gareth Grith-Jones, Funraiser, Educatedseacucumber, Wbm1058, BG19bot, Easychord, Debastein, Econ1174, Scmbwis, Ameliaclopez,
Vinophil, Ecrbrown, Jeremy112233, David.moreno72, Cyberbot II, Br808, Cupco, Sabine.Nicole, Harris.lj, JackieNarvaez, GabeIglesia,
BreakfastJr, Aellithy, Zptt55, Skr15081997, Monkbot, Lajh87, MarshalRodreck, Mohammed Hamed Ahmed Soliman, Loraof, Pinnate
foliage, Sgarmisa, Tcheng67, Morran vikas, KasparBot, EditingGeek and Anonymous: 192

12.2

Images

File:Julesdupuit.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Julesdupuit.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.economyprofessor.com/theorists/julesdupuit.php Original artist: Unknown<a href='//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718'
title='wikidata:Q4233718'><img
alt='wikidata:Q4233718'
src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/
Wikidata-logo.svg/20px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png' width='20' height='11' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/30px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png
1.5x,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/
Wikidata-logo.svg/40px-Wikidata-logo.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='1050' data-le-height='590' /></a>

12.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0