ABSTRACT
There is now widespread acceptance, albeit grudging in some quarters, that the economist has a role to play in the evaluation of welfare services. It is no longer sufficient, if indeed it ever were, simply to consider the effectiveness of programmes; the costs must also be evaluated. This conclusion is not the result of a balancesheet mentality or preoccupation with pounds and pence but is inevitable given the definition of economic cost. In economic terms the costs of a programme represent the benefits that could have been obtained had the same resources been allocated to another use. An economic appraisal is therefore essentially concerned with comparing the benefits of alternative courses of action. The benefits of social policy are the net effects the intervention is designed to have on the welfare or quality of life of clients. Therefore, to paraphrase one of Harold Wilson’s political aphorisms ‘one client’s quality of life is another client’s economic cost’. Far from being the dismal science, economics is concerned with maximizing the benefits we secure from the use of scarce resources. As such there is no contradiction in adopting an economic perspective to quality of life issues.
