scholarly journals The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphan Marette ◽  
Jutta Roosen ◽  
Sandrine Blanchemanche

This article explores the combination of laboratory and field experiments in defining a welfare framework and the impact of different regulatory tools on consumer behaviors. First, an overview of strengths and weaknesses raised by the experimental literature show that, for food consumption, lab and field experiments may be complementary to each other. The lab experiment elicits willingness to pay useful for determining per-unit damages based on well-informed, thoughtful preferences, while the field experiment determines purchase/consumption reactions in real contexts. Second, the analytical approach suggests how to combine the results of both lab and field experiments to determine the welfare impact of different regulatory tools such as labels and/or taxes. Third, an empirical application focuses on a lab and a field experiment conducted in France to evaluate the impact of regulation on fish consumption. Estimations for the French tuna market show that a per-unit tax on tuna and/or an advisory policy lead to welfare improvements.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Fackler ◽  
Christian Henrichson ◽  
Elizabeth Jànszky ◽  
S. Rebecca Neusteter

This article first catalogs the curious lack of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) in policing, given the increasing use of BCA in other areas of criminal justice. Policing has historically been viewed through a benefit-only lens, focusing almost exclusively on the welfare gains associated with the incapacitation of dangerous offenders and the deterrence of future criminal activity. The benefit-only perspective fails to take into account the significant costs of enforcement. Most saliently, the benefit-only perspective limits the discussion of the costs to policing. We argue that BCA of policing should not be limited to the financial perspective of any municipality, but must include the full nonbudgetary social costs and benefits felt by all those who feel the impact of policing. Social costs should include all direct and indirect costs borne by members of society who are impacted by policing practices in addition to costs that appear in police department budgets.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 409-424
Author(s):  
Johanna Jussila Hammes

AbstractPrevious research shows that Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) is seldom done in Sweden, and that the results e.g., in Norway and the Netherlands do not influence the ultimate policy choice. We explain why bureaucrats may choose (not) to do a BCA with cognitive- and search costs coupled with career concerns. Given the initial policy chosen by an agenda setter, bureaucrats who stay working at an agency have policy preferences close to the initial policy; those with reservation wages above a threshold quit and therefore do not influence policy. The bureaucrats’ preferences converge to the initial policy level over time. A BCA reveals the inefficiency of the initial policy and the bureaucrats consequently have no incentive to do one, except when the policy is restricted by a binding governmental budget constraint.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Daniel Acland

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document