Problem
We examined two efficiency criteria: Pareto efficiency and Kaldor Hicks efficiency. Recall that Pareto allows projects to go forward only if losers are fully compensated, whereas Kaldor-Hicks allows them to proceed as long as aggregate benefits exceed costs, or if B > C (that is, compensation of losers is not required). According to Michelman's (1967) criterion, projects can go forward if B C > min(S, D), where, recall, S are settlement costs and D are demoralization costs. Given this formula, explain why Michelman is more permissive than Pareto but less permissive than Kaldor Hicks.
The response should include a reference list. Double-space, using Times New Roman 12 pnt font, one-inch margins, and APA style of writing and citations.