Commensuration and styles of reasoning: Venice, cost–benefit, and the defence of place

Quantitative economic calculations in environmental assessments can both stabilize and disrupt the objectivity of numbers, depending on how the subject and object of calculation are represented. This study analyzes a controversial cost–benefit analysis for Venice’s flood protection scheme, revealing that the 'commensuration' and standardization facilitated by numerical data depend heavily on the conceptual framing of urban and natural environments. The research traces differing 'styles of calculation,' demonstrating how economic representations intersect with political symbolism and intervention aims, ultimately influencing debates over realism and accuracy in such assessments.

Samiolo, R. (2012). Commensuration and styles of reasoning: Venice, cost–benefit, and the defence of place. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(6), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.04.001