IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v10y2019i3p317-350_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rear Visibility and Some Unresolved Problems for Economic Analysis (With Notes on Experience Goods)

Author

Listed:
  • Sunstein, Cass R.

Abstract

In 2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized its rear visibility regulation, which requires cameras in all new vehicles, with the goal of allowing drivers to see what is behind them and thus reducing backover accidents. In 2018, the Trump administration embraced the regulation. The rear visibility rule raises numerous puzzles. First, Congress’ grant of authority was essentially standardless – perhaps the most open-ended in all of federal regulatory law. Second, it is not easy to identify a market failure to justify the regulation. Third, the monetized costs of the regulation greatly exceeded the monetized benefits, and yet on welfare grounds, the regulation can plausibly be counted as a significant success. Rearview cameras produce a set of benefits that are hard to quantify, including increased ease of driving, and those benefits might have been made a part of “breakeven analysis,” accompanying standard cost-benefit analysis. In addition, rearview cameras significantly improve the experience of driving, and it is plausible to think that in deciding whether to demand them, many vehicle purchasers did not sufficiently anticipate that improvement. This is a problem of limited foresight; rearview cameras are “experience goods.” A survey conducted in 2019 strongly supports this proposition, finding that about 56 % of consumers would demand at least $300 to buy a car without a rearview camera, and that fewer than 6 % would demand $50 or less. Almost all of that 6 % consists of people who do not own a car with a rearview camera. (The per-person cost is usually under $50.) These conclusions have general implications for other domains in which regulation has the potential to improve social welfare, even if it fails standard cost-benefit analysis; the defining category involves situations in which people lack experience with a good whose provision might have highly beneficial welfare effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunstein, Cass R., 2019. "Rear Visibility and Some Unresolved Problems for Economic Analysis (With Notes on Experience Goods)," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 317-350, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:317-350_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588819000307/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kniesner, Thomas J. & Viscusi, W. Kip, 2024. "A Tale of the Tails: The Value of a Statistical Life at the Tails of the Age Distribution," IZA Discussion Papers 16867, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Matias Busso & Maria P. Gonzalez & Carlos Scartascini, 2022. "On the demand for telemedicine: Evidence from the COVID‐19 pandemic," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 1491-1505, July.
    3. Nina Boogen & Massimo Filippini & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2022. "Value of co-benefits from energy saving ventilation systems—Contingent valuations on Swiss home owners," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 22/368, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    4. González, María P. & Scartascini, Carlos, 2023. "Increasing the Use of Telemedicine: A Field Experiment," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12850, Inter-American Development Bank.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:3:p:317-350_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.