IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v1y2007i2p172-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic significance of “insignificant” rules

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Hahn
  • Caroline Cecot

Abstract

We know relatively little about the economic effects of “insignificant” rules because they are not typically analyzed. Yet, these rules could be cumulatively important. We provide an economic analysis of one proposed rule to control hazardous air pollutants, which is not considered to be economically significant. This rule is of particular interest because it is one of the first in a long series of rules that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will consider for limiting hazardous air pollutant emissions. Our analysis suggests that the proposed controls that EPA has considered are not likely to pass a benefit–cost test. We recommend that an agency base its decision to allocate additional resources to benefit–cost analysis on the expected value of the improved information. In addition, agencies should consider applying a rule of thumb that would specify a threshold level of risk reduction that needs to be achieved before some kinds of regulation are considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Hahn & Caroline Cecot, 2007. "The economic significance of “insignificant” rules," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 172-182, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:1:y:2007:i:2:p:172-182
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00011.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00011.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00011.x?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. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Colby, Bonnie G. & LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1997. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 75-93, May.
    2. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, November.
    3. Hahn Robert W. & Litan Robert E., 2007. "The President's New Executive Order on Regulation," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-4, March.
    4. Portney, Paul R, 1990. "Economics and the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 173-181, Fall.
    5. Richard Parker, "undated". "Grading the Government," University of Connecticut School of Law Working Papers uconn_ucwps-1000, University of Connecticut School of Law.
    6. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
    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. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    2. Robert W. Hahn & Katrina Kosec & Peter J. Neumann & Scott Wallsten, 2006. "What Affects the Quality of Economic Analysis for Life‐Saving Investments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 641-655, June.
    3. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Kahn, Danny, 2010. "A symmetric safety valve," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 4921-4932, September.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen, 2003. "The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-15, Resources for the Future.
    5. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2013. "The SO 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 103-122, Winter.
    6. William H. Simon, 2010. "Optimization and its discontents in regulatory design: Bank regulation as an example," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 3-21, March.
    7. Böhringer, Christoph & Garcia-Muros, Xaquin & Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel & Rey, Luis, 2017. "US climate policy: A critical assessment of intensity standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 125-135.
    8. James M. Williamson & Hale W. Thurston & Matthew T. Heberling, 2007. "Valuing acid mine drainage remediation in West Virginia: benefit transfer with preference calibration," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(4), pages 271-293, December.
    9. Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Tradable Permits in Developing Countries: Evidence from Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-51, Resources for the Future.
    10. Park, Hojeong & Hong, Won Kyung, 2014. "Korea׳s emission trading scheme and policy design issues to achieve market-efficiency and abatement targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-83.
    11. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    12. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer, 2009. "Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 179-210.
    13. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    14. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Julien Guyot & Akhil Rao & Sebastien Rouillon, 2022. "The long-run economics of sustainable orbit use," Working Papers hal-03891292, HAL.
    16. Coria, Jessica & Löfgren, Åsa & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "To Trade or Not to Trade: Firm-Level Analysis of Emissions Trading in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-25-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    18. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2019. "Policy Evolution under the Clean Air Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    20. Karp, Larry S. & Liu, Xuemei, 1998. "Valuing Tradeable Co2 Permits For Oecd Countries," CUDARE Working Papers 25054, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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:1:y:2007:i:2:p:172-182. 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.