Regulatory Oversight and Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Historical Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-70
Author(s):  
Susan E. Dudley
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Regulatory Affairs ◽  
Regulatory Budget ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Regulatory Practice

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Executive Office of the President coordinates the federal government’s regulatory agenda, reviews executive branch agencies’ draft regulations, and oversees government-wide information quality, peer review, privacy, and statistical policies. Remarkably, its regulatory oversight functions, and the benefit-cost framework underlying them, have not changed significantly through six very different presidential administrations. This article examines the evolution of executive regulatory oversight and analysis from the 1970s to today, exploring the reasons for its durability and whether the current imposition of a regulatory budget challenges the bipartisan nature of regulatory practice.

The Council on Wage and Price Stability: A Retrospective

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Hopkins ◽  
Laura Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Price Stability ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
White House ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Regulatory Decisions

Applying benefit-cost analysis in the White House regulatory oversight process served as a basic mission of the Council on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS) during its seven-year lifespan (1974–1981). This paper reviews that CWPS experience, which involved filing comments in over 300 proceedings at more than 25 federal regulatory agencies. The paper draws on those CWPS public comments (filings), identifying persistent and pervasive deficiencies in the economic analysis regulators then and now often use as support for new regulation. CWPS filings fostered greater acceptance of benefit-cost analysis in regulatory decisions; such analysis is now required by executive order.

Making the Case for NextGen Concepts—Using the FAA Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Lagu ◽  
Suzanne Akkoush ◽  
Annie Cheng ◽  
Bill Dunlay
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Benefit Cost

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Global Health

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa A. Robinson ◽  
James K. Hammitt
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Note on "Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Questionable Part of Environmental Decisioning"

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-231
Author(s):  
Alan S. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

What’s in, what’s out? Towards a rigorous definition of the boundaries of benefit-cost analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Daniel Acland
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Consumer Sovereignty ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Rigorous Definition ◽  
Pareto Criterion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is typically defined as an implementation of the potential Pareto criterion, which requires inclusion of any impact for which individuals have willingness to pay (WTP). This definition is incompatible with the exclusion of impacts such as rights and distributional concerns, for which individuals do have WTP. I propose a new definition: BCA should include only impacts for which consumer sovereignty should govern. This is because WTP implicitly preserves consumer sovereignty, and is thus only appropriate for ‘sovereignty-warranting’ impacts. I compare the high cost of including non-sovereignty-warranting impacts to the relatively low cost of excluding sovereignty-warranting impacts.

Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Examples from Rwanda and Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Moss ◽  
Andrew Schmitz
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Systematic Variation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Small Producer ◽  
Agricultural Research And Development ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract The question of how to allocate scarce agricultural research and development dollars is significant for developing countries. Historically, benefit/cost analysis has been the standard for comparing the relative benefits of alternative investments. We examine the potential of shifting the implicit equal weights approach to benefit/cost analysis, as well as how a systematic variation in welfare weights may affect different groups important to policy makers. For example, in the case of Rwandan coffee, a shift in the welfare weights that would favor small coffee producers in Rwanda over foreign consumers of Rwandan coffee would increase the support for investments in small producer coffee projects. Generally, changes in welfare weights alter the ordering for selecting investments across alternative projects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document