Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:

Abstract

Starting from a distinction between Kantian (principle-based) and utilitarian (preference-based) approaches in political theory, this essay argues that we may understand normative judgments individuals make about policy to express principled views of the public interest or purpose not private preferences about their own consumption opportunities. These judgments, in other words, state opinions about what we ought to do as a society rather than report preferences about what I want as a utility-maximizer. This essay then argues that contingent valuation can take into account these kinds of judgments—which dominate public discourse about the environment—only if it moves toward a deliberative, discursive, jury-like research method emphasizing informed discussion leading toward a consensus based on an argument about the public interest.