In a memo, Jim Donnelly argues that the case for locating a new chemical plant in a poor, third-world country is supported by cost-benefit analysis because: (1) pollution does less harm in a less polluted country than in a more polluted one; (2) any harm done to poor people results in less cost; (3) fewer cancers will occur in a poor country in which people die young from other causes; and the cost of pollution is a function of the amount that people are willing to pay for such things as clean air, and rich people will pay more. Rebecca Wright, who is a specialist in cost-benefit analysis, is troubled by the conclusion but can find little fault in the reasoning.
1. Why does the memo trouble Rebecca Wright?
2. Is the memo troubling because the people of the third world do not have an opportunity to take part in the decision? Would the case be different if the people affected recognized the benefits and consented to the location of the plant in their country?