scholarly journals Takeaways from the Conference on the Future of White House Regulatory Oversight and Cost-Benefit Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Pierce
Author(s):  
Trinh Phuong Ngoc ◽  
Hoang Xuan Co

The study focuses on assessing the effectiveness of bauxite mining and processing in the Central Highlands through the example of Tan Rai (Lam Dong) and Nhan Co (Dak Nong) bauxite-alumina complexes by the method of extended cost benefit analysis. External costs have been localized to be taken into account, including opportunity costs, environmental costs, corporate social responsibility costs and contingency costs for environmental incidents. The results showed that if calculating the environmental costs, the Tan Rai complex does not bring effectiveness for society with a negative NPV value (VND -5,167,422 million), IRR (6.27%) is lower than the discount (10%); Nhan Co complex is effective with positive NPV (VND 145,862 million), IRR (10.1%) is higher than the discount (10%), but the operation of this complex is risky when analyzing the sensitivity of the indicators. A ton of alumina will require an average from VND 0.7 to 0.9 million of environmental costs. In a year, two bauxite-alumina complexes in the Central Highlands create stable jobs for thousands of workers, contributing from VND 1,200 to 1,400 billion of taxes and fees for the State, equivalent to between VND 1.0 and 1.2 million per ton of alumina. From the lessons learned from Tan Rai and Nhan Co complexes, the future bauxite mining and processing projects need to be implemented on schedule and operate at 100% of the designed capacity right from the first year to achieve optimal efficiency. In the future, it is necessary to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of closed, full and chain options to improve the operational efficiency of bauxite projects, aiming to thoroughly solve the environmental issues by improving technological processes, implementing land restoration after mining, applying cleaner production solutions.


1972 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-626
Author(s):  
Robert L. Curry

A recent article in this Journal, X, I, May 1972, by Robert E. Miller and Peter R. Carter on ‘A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Liberia’, examined the general cost pattern inherent in concession agreements based upon her ‘Open-Door Policy’, and noted that ‘officials of the Government of Liberia who are responsible for negotiating foreign concessionaire agreements… now recognise this pattern and hopefully plan better bargains in the future’. I wish to focus attention on Liberia's external debts, a particular cost largely resulting from that policy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Sagoff

President Obamas recent memorandum calling for an overhaul of White House regulatory policies provides an opportunity to revisit our reliance on cost-benefit analysis as a fundamental regulatoryprinciple.


2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1188-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Baumann ◽  
Tobias Hölscher ◽  
Daniel Zips

1995 ◽  
Vol 69 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 45-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Erisman

Survey of the basic developmental dynamics involved in the evolving Cuban-CARICOM relationship. On the basis of a cost-risk/benefit analysis, the author provides some projections regarding the future of this relationship. He concludes that there appear sufficient potential benefits for both sides to deepen the relationship. Cuban-CARICOM integration, however, has no top priority for either partner.


The prime objective must be the protection of crops, but impact on the environment now or in the future should be minimal. Concern for the future cannot adequately be expressed by cost-benefit analysis, nor can the ‘polluter pays’ principle be simply applied. But a policy of increasing the precision of pesticide use will protect the environment and bring benefits to crop protection (Southwood 1979). The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Anon. 1979) recommended that the reduction of the quantity of pesticide used should be a declared policy aim. Unnecessary usage arises from ‘cosmetic control’, from the use of pesticides when other control methods would be more appropriate, from farmers’ having a false impression of the pest problem, from insurance spraying and from inappropriate application.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document