Evaluating Regulatory Impact Assessments in Education Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-353
Author(s):  
Clive R. Belfield ◽  
A. Brooks Bowden ◽  
Viviana Rodriguez

Benefit–cost analysis is an important part of regulatory decision-making, yet there are questions as to how often and how well it is performed. Here we examine 28 Regulatory Impact Assessments performed by the federal government on education regulations since 2006. We find many Regulatory Impact Assessments estimated costs, albeit using informal methods, but most failed to adequately report benefits. Also, most studies did not estimate net present value or clearly report methodological assumptions. In reviewing the relatively high quality studies we identified a number of discrepancies from best practice. Most importantly, few Regulatory Impact Assessments attempted a social benefit–cost analysis: Most examined “administrative burdens” from compliance with legislation. This alternative focus on administrative burdens has significant implications for economic evaluation in practice.

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 139-153
Author(s):  
Babita ◽  
N. K. Bishnoi

Special economic zones (SEZs) in India have been in news due to their usefulness vis-à-vis adverse effects on economy. A good number of opponents opine that costs incurred by SEZs outweigh the benefits. However, it cannot be denied that SEZs have played a positive role in the welfare of the economy. Thus, to examine this issue, we carried out a social benefit–cost analysis (SBCA) on Noida Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) within the context of enclave model for the period of 2009–2016. The result shows the positive net present value and benefit–cost ratio greater than one under methodological assumptions. This infers that NSEZ is contributing towards the welfare of Indian economy. One interesting findings of the study is that NSEZ is generating positive gains to economy with the absence of various market distortions which could otherwise reduce the realised benefits. Hence, need arises to eliminate such distortions from outside area of economy also to make it competitive at global level. Therefore, it can be concluded that competitiveness of the Indian economy can be enhanced with the removal of market distortions and liberalisation of rules, regulation and policies for economic development activities. Hence, the Government of India should emphasise and make regulations and policies that encourage competitiveness of the industries. JEL Classification: D04, D61, F13, H2, J01


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-340
Author(s):  
Richard O. Zerbe

AbstractThis paper provides a Consent Justification for benefit–cost analysis (BCA). The Consent Justification is based on a tendency toward actual compensation. A substantial justification for using BCA as a tool is the actual Pareto test, called the Consent Justification, in combination with the net present value criterion for individual projects. The traditional justification, the potential compensation test (PCT), is unsatisfactory on several grounds. In addition, the PCT occupies the uneasy position of being the source of extended criticisms in the economic literature and especially in the legal and philosophy literature. The argument for the Consent Justification lies not only in the deficiencies of the PCT, but also, especially, in a showing through simulation that all tend to gain across a portfolio of projects which is not large but rather robust with respect to errors and assumptions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 357-360 ◽  
pp. 2312-2315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Ting Ma ◽  
Chun Jie Ma

Through the concept of benefit-cost and the comparison with financial evaluation, this article expounds the method and applicability of benefit-cost analysis, and gives three indicators which are economic internal rate of return (EIRR), economic net present value (ENPV) and benefit-cost ratio (RBC) to analyze the feasibility of construction project.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 3-40
Author(s):  
George C. Galster ◽  
Anna Maria Santiago ◽  
Richard J. Smith ◽  
Joffre Leroux

Background: Federal policy has increasingly sought to build financial capability, earnings, and assets of subsidized housing recipients. Objective: We conduct a benefit–cost analysis of the Denver Housing Authority’s (DHA) innovative Home Ownership Program (HOP), which incentivizes participants to increase earnings, build wealth, and purchase homes. Research design, subjects, and measures: In assessing HOP participant benefits (earnings, home-buying, and positive exits from DHA), we use parameter estimates from quasi-experimental methods (i.e., propensity score matching) that permit drawing causal inferences of program impacts. Impact estimates are robust to alternate model specification and mostly insensitive to omitted variable bias found in the social sciences. We deploy a comprehensive accounting framework, distinguishing benefits and costs accruing to program participants, nonparticipants (other citizens, taxpayers, and governments), and society as a whole. We use Monte Carlo simulation techniques to approximate distributions of benefit and cost parameters, thereby ascertaining how reliably participation in HOP yielded net benefits compared to if families had continued to receive housing assistance during the same period. Results: We estimate a net social benefit from HOP of US$6,015 per participant. The simulated standard deviation was only a third of this value and 99.9% of simulations returned positive net social benefits. Conclusion: We conclude with a high degree of statistical confidence that HOP produced substantial net benefits to society as a whole, program participants, and nonparticipants alike. HOP offers strong potential for poverty alleviation among housing subsidy recipients and should be replicated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document