IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v2y2008i4p405-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Cecot
  • Robert Hahn
  • Andrea Renda
  • Lorna Schrefler

Abstract

Governments throughout the world are requiring greater use of economic analysis as a way of informing policy decisions. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of impact assessment in the European Union, using US assessments as a benchmark. We find that recent EU impact assessments include more economic information than they did in the past, although important items are still missing. We also provide evidence that the quality of EU impact assessment increases with the expected cost of a proposal. Furthermore, we find that the quality of EU assessments that report high total costs is similar to that of US assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Cecot & Robert Hahn & Andrea Renda & Lorna Schrefler, 2008. "An evaluation of the quality of impact assessment in the European Union with lessons for the US and the EU," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 405-424, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:2:y:2008:i:4:p:405-424
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00044.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00044.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00044.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. Winston Harrington & Richard D. Morgenstern & Peter Nelson, 2000. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 297-322.
    2. 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.
    3. Lee, Norman & Kirkpatrick, Colin, 2004. "A Pilot Study of the Quality of European Commission Extended Impact Assessment," Impact Assessment Research Centre (IARC) Working Papers 30580, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    4. Robert W. Hahn & Patrick M. Dudley, 2007. "How Well Does the U.S. Government Do Benefit-Cost Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 192-211, Summer.
    5. Brett Snyder, 1996. "EPA Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Analysis," Others 9602003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. repec:reg:rpubli:91 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:reg:rpubli:322 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Hahn, Robert W. (ed.), 1996. "Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195211740, Decembrie.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert W. Hahn & Robert A. Ritz, 2015. "Does the Social Cost of Carbon Matter? Evidence from US Policy," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 229-248.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Neal Hockley, 2014. "Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Decision-Support Tool or a Venue for Contesting Ecosystem Knowledge?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 283-300, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Fraas, Art & Morgenstern, Richard, 2014. "Identifying the analytical implications of alternative regulatory philosophies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 137-171, January.
    9. Kopits, Elizabeth & McGartland, Al & Morgan, Cynthia & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ron & Simon, Nathalie B. & Simpson, David & Wolverton, Ann, 2014. "Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 173-193, June.
    10. Michael Makowsky & Richard Wagner, 2009. "From scholarly idea to budgetary institution: the emergence of cost-benefit analysis," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 57-70, March.
    11. Simpson R. David, 2014. "Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-18, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Burtraw, Dallas & Woerman, Matt & Paul, Anthony, 2012. "Retail electricity price savings from compliance flexibility in GHG standards for stationary sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 67-77.
    14. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    15. David A. Keiser & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph S. Shapiro, 2019. "The low but uncertain measured benefits of US water quality policy," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(12), pages 5262-5269, March.
    16. Norman, Catherine S. & DECANIO, STEPHEN J & Fan, Lin, 2007. "Opportunities and Challenges for the 20th Anniversary of the Montréal Protocol," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3t90g0gr, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    17. Managi, Shunsuke & Opaluch, James J. & Jin, Di & Grigalunas, Thomas A., 2006. "Stochastic frontier analysis of total factor productivity in the offshore oil and gas industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 204-215, November.
    18. Frank Ackerman, "undated". "The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs," GDAE Working Papers 06-02, GDAE, Tufts University.
    19. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Frontrunners and Laggards: The Strategy of Environmental Regulation under Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 325-346, November.
    20. 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).

    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:2:y:2008:i:4:p:405-424. 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.