IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i3p641-655.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Affects the Quality of Economic Analysis for Life‐Saving Investments?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert W. Hahn
  • Katrina Kosec
  • Peter J. Neumann
  • Scott Wallsten

Abstract

Economic analysis of life‐saving investments in both the public and private sectors has the potential to dramatically improve longevity and the quality of life, but only if the analyses on which decisions are based are done well. In this article, we analyze a data set that provides information on the content and quality of journal articles that measure the cost‐effectiveness of life‐saving investments. Our study is the first to provide a detailed multivariate analysis of factors affecting objective measures of quality. We also explore whether a series of recommendations by an expert panel convened by the U.S. Public Health Service affect the way analyses of specific life‐saving investments are done. Our results suggest that four factors are positively correlated with an index we construct to measure analytical quality: (1) having at least one author affiliated with a university, (2) publication in a journal that has experience in publishing these analyses, (3) if the life‐saving investment is located in the United States, and (4) if the analysis considers a measure of social costs or benefits. Somewhat surprisingly, a study's funding source and whether it is affiliated with industry are not significantly correlated with the quality index. Finally, neither time nor the panel guidelines had an impact on the index.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:641-655
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00774.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00774.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00774.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. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, January.
    3. Morrall, John F, III, 2003. "Saving Lives: A Review of the Record," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 221-237, December.
    4. Gerard, Karen & Smoker, Irenie & Seymour, Janelle, 1999. "Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 217-238, March.
    5. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard & Bailey, Elizabeth M, 1998. "The Market for Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 669-685, September.
    6. repec:reg:rpubli:322 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. W. Kip Viscusi, 1996. "Economic Foundations of the Current Regulatory Reform Efforts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 119-134, Summer.
    8. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Farrow, Scott, 1991. "Does Analysis Matter? Economics and Planning in the Department of the Interior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 172-176, February.
    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. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Kahn, Danny, 2010. "A symmetric safety valve," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 4921-4932, September.
    2. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    3. Brookshire, David S & Burness, H Stuart, 2001. "The Informational Role of the EPA SO2 Permit Auction," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 43-60, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    6. Haoran He & Yefeng Chen, 2021. "Auction mechanisms for allocating subsidies for carbon emissions reduction: an experimental investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 387-430, August.
    7. Evans, Lewis & Counsell, Kevin, 2005. "Essays in Water Allocation: The Way Forward," Working Paper Series 3848, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    8. Dijkstra, Bouwe R. & Haan, Marco, 2001. "Sellers' Hedging Incentives at EPA's Emission Trading Auction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 286-294, May.
    9. Hintermann, Beat, 2010. "Allowance price drivers in the first phase of the EU ETS," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 43-56, January.
    10. Harstad, Bård & Eskeland, Gunnar S., 2010. "Trading for the future: Signaling in permit markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 749-760, October.
    11. Chris Rohlfs & Ryan Sullivan & Thomas J. Kniesner, 2016. "Reducing risks in wartime through capital-labor substitution: Evidence from World War II," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 163-190, April.
    12. Lawrence J. White, 2006. "Focusing More on Outputs and on Markets: What Financial Regulation Can Learn from Progress in Other Policy Areas," NFI Policy Briefs 2006-PB-18, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
    13. Asproudis, Elias & Weyman-Jones, Tom, 2011. "Third parties �participation in tradable permits market. Do we need them?," MPRA Paper 28766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Timothy P. Hubbard & Justin Svec, 2015. "A Model of Tradeable Capital Tax Permits," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(6), pages 916-942, December.
    15. Kimberly M. Thompson & Maria Segui‐Gomez & John D. Graham, 2002. "Validating Benefit and Cost Estimates: The Case of Airbag Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 803-811, August.
    16. Ruttan, Vernon W., 2006. "Social science knowledge and induced institutional innovation: an institutional design perspective," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 249-272, December.
    17. Stavins, Robert, 2003. "Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience and Related Research?," Working Paper Series rwp03-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Ling Huang & Yishu Zhou, 2019. "Carbon Prices and Fuel Switching: A Quasi-experiment in Electricity Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 53-98, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Robert Hahn & Caroline Cecot, 2007. "The economic significance of “insignificant” rules," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 172-182, June.

    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:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:641-655. 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)1539-6924 .

    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.