Benefit–cost analysis (BCA) is often viewed as measuring the efficiency of a policy independent of the distribution of its consequences. The role of distributional effects on policy choice is disputed; either: (a) the policy that maximizes net benefits should be selected and distributional concerns should be addressed through other measures, such as tax and transfer programs or (b) BCA should be supplemented with distributional analysis and decision-makers should weigh efficiency and distribution in policy choice. The separation of efficiency and distribution is misleading. The measure of efficiency depends on the numéraire chosen for the analysis, whether monetary values or some other good (unless individuals have the same rates of substitution between them). The choice of numéraire is not neutral; it can affect the ranking of policies by calculated net benefits. Alternative evaluation methods, such as BCA using a different numéraire, weighted BCA, or a social welfare function (SWF), may better integrate concerns about distribution and efficiency. The most appropriate numéraire, distributional weights, or SWFs cannot be measured or statistically estimated; it is a normative choice.

This paper is concerned with clarifying the link between risk measurement and capital efficiency. For this purpose we introduce risk measurement as the minimum cost of making a position acceptable by adding an optimal combination of multiple eligible assets. Under certain assumptions, it is shown that these risk measures have properties similar to those of coherent risk measures. The motivation for this paper was the study of a multi-currency setting where it is natural to use simultaneously a domestic and a foreign asset as investment vehicles to inject the capital necessary to make an unacceptable position acceptable. We also study what happens when one changes the unit of account from domestic to foreign currency and are led to the notion of compatibility of risk measures. In addition, we aim to clarify terminology in the field.