How efficient are national environmental standards? A benefit-cost analysis of the United States experience

1991 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph A. Luken ◽  
Lyman Clark
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
States Experience ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
National Environmental

European and International Perspectives on Benefit-Cost Analysis: Symposium Introduction

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-63
Author(s):  
Massimo Florio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Project ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Regulatory Impact Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

AbstractThe idea of assessing the costs and benefits of public and private projects is not new to Europe, dating back to studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees (Paris) in the XIX century. Later on, in the last century, Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) in its current form has been more extensively used in the United States than in Europe. In the last two decades, however, there has been a rapid increase in its use in a number of European countries and at the European Union (EU) level. European governments often undertake tasks that would be done by private companies in the United States, such as the provision of transport, energy, water and waste management, health services, etc. In the United States the focus of BCA has often been regulatory impact analysis, rather than public project evaluation. One might, therefore, expect that Europeans might approach some things differently from their American counterparts and that new insights might result from these efforts. The articles in this symposium, taken from the recent European Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) conference in Toulouse, illustrate some of these differences and some converging themes.

Environmental Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Comparative Analysis Between the United States and the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Aldy ◽  
Giles Atkinson ◽  
Matthew J. Kotchen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Resource Economics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Environmental Benefit ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

The United States and United Kingdom have long-standing traditions in the use of environmental benefit-cost analysis (E-BCA). While there are similarities between how E-BCA is utilized, there are significant differences too, many of which mirror ongoing debates and recent developments in the literature on environmental and natural resource economics. We review the use of E-BCA in both countries across three themes: ( a) the role of long-term discounting, ( b) the estimation and use of carbon valuation, and ( c) the estimation and use of the value of a statistical life. In each case, we discuss how academic developments are (and are not) translated into practical use and draw comparative lessons. We find that, in some cases, practical differences in E-BCA can be overstated, although in others these seem more substantive. Advances in the academic frontier also raise the question of when and how to update practical E-BCA, with very different answers across our themes. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 13 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Problematic Status of Corporate Regulation in the United States: Towards a New Moral Order

1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 705-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
G L Clark
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Driving Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corporate Restructuring ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Contractual Agreements ◽  
Benefit Cost

Evidence on the geographical dimensions of corporate restructuring in the United States suggests that, if left to themselves, corporations often break the law or at least the spirit of law in furthering their economic interests. The design and implementation of restructuring involving the spatial relocation of work is in many instances conceived with the goal of circumventing corporations' social obligations. Workers' pension entitlements (and their contractual agreements with corporations on many other matters) are at risk when the economic imperatives of competition and technical innovation are the driving forces behind corporations' actions. These issues are explored with respect to rational choice theory, advancing an argument to the effect that if corporate restructuring is only understood in these terms, the prospects for effective public regulation are bleak indeed. A regulatory framework that explicitly references moral standards could be, however, more effective because the terms of evaluation would be legitimately other than simple benefit-cost analysis. This last argument is briefly illustrated by reference to the moral component inherent in making contracts between agents.

scholarly journals Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Biases Understating Net Benefits

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip E. Graves
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Environmental Policies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Marginal Costs ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Proper Science

There are many reasons to suspect that benefit-cost analysis applied to environmental policies will result in policy decisions that will reject those environmental policies. The important question, of course, is whether those rejections are based on proper science. The present paper explores sources of bias in the methods used to evaluate environmental policy in the United States, although most of the arguments translate immediately to decision-making in other countries. There are some “big picture” considerations that have gone unrecognized, and there are numerous more minor, yet cumulatively important, technical details that point to potentially large biases against acceptance on benefit-cost grounds of environmental policies that have true marginal benefits greater than true marginal costs, both in net present value terms. It is hoped that the issues raised here will improve future conduct of benefit-cost analyses of environmental policies.

scholarly journals Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Standard Textbook ◽  
The Government ◽  
Benefit Cost

AbstractBenefit-cost analysis is required for many regulatory decisions in the United States and in other countries. In this paper, I examine a standard textbook model that is used in benefit-cost analysis as it is actually applied to environmental policy and other areas of regulation. My primary objective is to suggest how including some key factors in the analysis could promote the development of smarter regulation.I begin by presenting a standard economic model for government intervention in markets, which balances benefits and a narrow definition of costs. I then introduce a richer normative theory that considers several political and economic costs that are frequently not considered in analyzing real-world applications. Examples include costs associated with rent seeking, design and implementation, and raising revenues. The richer theory suggests that the government should supply less of a good, or ask the private sector to provide less of that good, than the standard economic model suggests. The reason is that intervening in markets is often more costly than the standard model assumes. In special cases, the theory provides guidance on the setting of socially optimal taxes and subsidies. I then explore how the theory needs to be modified in the presence of biased estimates of benefits and costs. I conclude with a discussion of how the theoretical framework can be applied to the actual design of regulatory policy.

Benefit–cost analysis as a mechanism for evaluating conservation policies in developing countries

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
PRIYA SHYAMSUNDAR
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Industrialized Countries ◽  
Environmental Health And Safety ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Conservation Policies ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
The Tropics

Can benefit-cost analysis (BCA) be used in the developing world in the same way in which it is used in developed market economies? The paper by Arrow et al. makes a good case for employing BCA to evaluate environmental, health, and safety regulations in the United States. It offers a number of principles to guide the use of benefit-cost analyses, some of which can be applied to developing countries. Conservation policies in the tropics can help illustrate the relevance of BCA for evaluating regulations in less industrialized countries. I use a set of studies on the Mantadia National Park to show in practical terms how and when BCA can serve as an effective evaluative tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document