Cost-Benefit and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC)

The federal government and over thirty states nationwide offer a tax credit in lieu of certain expenditures incurred as part of historic rehabilitation projects. Several economic impact studies have shown the positive effect of the credit on job creation, property values, and environmental friendly behavior in Louisville, KY (Gilderbloom, Hanka & Ambrosius, 2009) and in the state of Maryland (Frizzell & Mitchell, 2002). Most of the studies of historic preservation credits are, however, nonempirical and evaluate only the economic impact of the credit. The societal benefit-cost analysis conducted in this manuscript is the first study of its kind of the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit (OHPTC) program. In addition, this study provides an OHPTC fiscal impact analysis (benefit-cost analysis from the government perspective).The data for the analysis come from the county auditors’ offices, and multiple proprietary sources, including administrative estimates provided by the agencies managing the OHPTC program, and online survey of the developers. The sensitivity analysis accounts for the differences in discount rates and other factors. The study finds that the overall societal benefits will outweigh overall societal costs by 2023. From the fiscal perspective, the program begins to pay for itself in 2025, but the overall program costs will remain higher than overall benefits during the considered study period (until 2030).

Download Full-text

The Economic Impact of Eradicating Peste des Petits Ruminants: A Benefit-Cost Analysis

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0149982 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e0149982 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Bryony A. Jones ◽

Karl M. Rich ◽

Jeffrey C. Mariner ◽

John Anderson ◽

Martyn Jeggo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Analysis ◽

Economic Impact ◽

Peste Des Petits Ruminants ◽

Benefit Cost Analysis ◽

Benefit Cost

Download Full-text

Water quality indices and benefit-cost analysis

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis ◽

10.1515/jbca-2012-0005 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 81-105 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Patrick J. Walsh ◽

William J. Wheeler

Keyword(s):

Water Quality ◽

Cost Analysis ◽

Impact Analysis ◽

Quality Parameters ◽

Convincing Evidence ◽

Aggregation Function ◽

Benefit Cost Analysis ◽

Regulatory Impact Analysis ◽

Aggregation Functions ◽

Benefit Cost

The water quality index (WQI) has emerged as a central way to convey water quality information to policy makers and the general public and is regularly used in US EPA regulatory impact analysis. It is a compound indicator that aggregates information from several water quality parameters. Several recent studies have criticized the aggregation function of the EPA WQI, arguing that it suffers from “eclipsing” and other problems. Although past papers have compared various aggregation functions in the WQI (usually looking at correlation), this is the first paper to examine these functions in the context of benefit-cost analysis. Using data from the 2003 EPA CAFO rule, the present paper examines four aggregation functions and their impact on estimated benefits. Results indicate that the aggregation method can have a profound effect on benefits, with total benefit estimates varying from $82 million to $504 million dollars. The net benefits of the rule vary from negative to positive over this range of estimates. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis does not find convincing evidence to substitute the current aggregation function, although several changes to the underlying WQI methodology may be warranted.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis ◽

10.1017/bca.2020.35 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Benefit-Cost Analysis in EU Chemicals Legislation: Experiences from over 100 REACH Applications for Authorisation

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis ◽

10.1017/bca.2018.10 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 181-204 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Stavros Georgiou ◽

Christoph M. Rheinberger ◽

Matti Vainio

Keyword(s):

Risk Management ◽

Cost Analysis ◽

Impact Analysis ◽

Cost Analyses ◽

Benefit Cost Analysis ◽

Regulatory Impact Analysis ◽

Societal Relevance ◽

Regulatory Impact ◽

Benefit Cost ◽

Reach Regulation

In this paper we review the benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) made to support applications for authorisations under the EU’s REACH Regulation on hazardous chemicals. Experiences from over 100 cases suggest that there are a number of informational and methodological challenges to overcome in these BCAs. In particular, we find that many REACH applicants have had problems explaining the societal relevance of the regulatory impacts expected to affect them and other market actors. Adapting the framework for regulatory impact assessment proposed by Dudley et al. [(2017). Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8, 187–204], we discuss these impacts from a welfare economics perspective and make suggestions on how to improve current practices in BCA applied to chemicals risk management. From this discussion we then distill a number of topics that deserve more attention in applied BCAs under the REACH Regulation.

Download Full-text