IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v11y2017i2p203-212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What's wrong with the back of the envelope? A call for simple (and timely) benefit–cost analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Carrigan
  • Stuart Shapiro

Abstract

Observers across the ideological spectrum have criticized benefit–cost analysis for as long as it has been part of the rulemaking process. Still, proponents and detractors agree that analysis has morphed into a mechanism often used by agencies to justify regulatory decisions already made. We argue that a simpler analysis of more alternatives conducted earlier in the regulatory process can resuscitate it as a tool to inform policy. Recognizing that requiring a procedure does not ensure that regulators will follow it, we offer possible remedies, including strengthening or relaxing subsequent review of proposed rules, which raise the cost of circumventing the reform or lower the cost of following it.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Carrigan & Stuart Shapiro, 2017. "What's wrong with the back of the envelope? A call for simple (and timely) benefit–cost analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 203-212, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:203-212
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12120
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12120?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacopo Torriti & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2012. "The first five years of the EU Impact Assessment system: a risk economics perspective on gaps between rationale and practice," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 169-186, February.
    2. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    3. repec:reg:rpubli:103 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    3. Jihad C. Elnaboulsi & Wassim Daher & Yiğit Sağlam, 2023. "Environmental taxation, information precision, and information sharing," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(2), pages 301-341, April.
    4. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.
    5. David Anthoff & Robert Hahn, 2010. "Government failure and market failure: on the inefficiency of environmental and energy policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(2), pages 197-224, Summer.
    6. Jerry Ellig & Patrick A. McLaughlin & John F. Morrall III, 2013. "Continuity, change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 153-173, June.
    7. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    8. Dietz, Simon & Hepburn, Cameron, 2013. "Benefit–cost analysis of non-marginal climate and energy projects," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 61-71.
    9. Stuart Shapiro & John F. Morrall III, 2012. "The triumph of regulatory politics: Benefit–cost analysis and political salience," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 189-206, June.
    10. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    11. Hahn, Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Lee Yong-Shik, 2015. "Call for a New Analytical Model for Law and Development," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-67, June.
    13. Robert w. Hahn & Robert A. Ritz, 2013. "Does the social Cost of Carbon Matter?: An Assessment of U.S. Policy," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1346, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    15. Christian Leuz, 2018. "Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 582-608, July.
    16. Juergen Jung & Michael D. Makowsky, 2012. "Regulatory Enforcement, Politics, and Institutional Distance: OSHA Inspections 1990-2010," Working Papers 2012-02, Towson University, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2013.
    17. Ainsworth, Penelope & Bell, Kendon & Barker, Adam, 2024. "An agent-based approach to QUICKly valuing the benefits of agricultural research and extension," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    18. Simon Dietz, 2011. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis," GRI Working Papers 54, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    19. Anja Bauer & Leo Capari & Daniela Fuchs & Titus Udrea, 2023. "Diversification, integration, and opening: developments in modelling for policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(6), pages 977-987.
    20. Dietz, Simon, 2011. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics Discussion Papers 2011-30, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    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:wly:reggov:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:203-212. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.