Behavioral economics and happiness research have many important implications for the conduct of benefit-cost analysis as well as for policy design and implementation. By identifying ways in which we may act irrationally and providing new perspectives on the relationship between our circumstances and our sense of well-being, this research raises numerous questions regarding the evaluation of individual and societal welfare and the desirability of alternative policies. In this special issue, we present a series of articles that explore these concerns and provide significant new insights.

Despite its importance in benefit-cost analyses in the water supply, transportation, and health care sectors, there are relatively few empirical estimates of the value of travel time savings (VTT) in low-income countries, particularly in rural areas. Analysts instead often rely on a textbook “rule of thumb” of valuing time at 50% of prevailing unskilled wage rates, though these benchmarks have little empirical support in these settings. We estimate the value of travel time through the use of a repeated discrete choice stated preference exercise. We asked 325 rural households in Meru County, Kenya to rank two new hypothetical water sources against their current water source. The two new hypothetical sources were described as safe and reliable to use, but varied only in their distance from the household and the price charged per water container. Results from random-parameters logit models imply an average value of travel time of 18 Ksh/hr, and generally support the 50% rule. These models produce the first individual-level VTT estimates reported in a low-income setting, and indicate statistically-significant heterogeneity in VTTs, though the heterogeneity is not well correlated with observables. A latent-class approach identifies four classes of respondents: one class (about one third of respondents) values time very highly (49 Ksh/hr), one poorer group values time hardly at all (less than 1 Ksh/hr), and two groups value time at approximately 9 Ksh/hr.

We investigated the perceived value of government programs on early-childhood development as a means of reducing childhood poverty. We incorporated preferences for the process as well as the outcome by developing two stated-preference survey instruments. One survey directly elicited respondents’ willingness to pay specifically for high-quality, intensive, early-childhood development programs at federal and state levels. A second survey elicited respondents’ preferences for increasing or decreasing taxes and reallocating expenditures between other government programs and early-childhood programs. We found that respondents cared greatly about how childhood poverty was reduced, not just reducing poverty per se. The perceived effectiveness of a program and ideological perspective were found to be important determinants of preferences for a poverty-reduction program. Respondents across all groups, including conservatives and respondents who perceived the effectiveness of early-childhood programs to be low, were not in favor of reducing the early-childhood program.

As higher education costs rise, many communities have begun to adopt their own financial aid strategy: place-based scholarships for students graduating from the local school district. In this paper, we examine the benefits and costs of the Kalamazoo Promise, one of the more universal and more generous place-based scholarships. Building upon estimates of the program’s heterogeneous effects on degree attainment, scholarship cost data, and projections of future earnings by education, we examine the Promise’s benefit-cost ratios for students differentiated by income, race, and gender. Although the average rate of return of the program is 11%, rates of return vary greatly by group. The Promise has high returns for both low-income and non-low-income groups, for non-Whites, and for women, while benefit assumptions matter more for Whites and men. Our results show that universal scholarships can reach many students and have a high rate of return, particularly for places with a high percentage of African American students. They also highlight the importance of disaggregating benefits and costs by subgroup when performing benefit-cost analysis when the treatment is heterogeneous.

This paper discusses the ways in which behavioral economics challenges the premises of conventional welfare economics. It proposes revised premises that survive those challenges and sets forth a welfare framework derived from that foundation. It argues that the proposed framework is practical, in the sense that it lends itself to applications, as well as unifying, in the sense that it subsumes other approaches and illuminates the relationships between them.

A key tool for studying the demand for neighborhood amenities and estimating the benefits from amenity improvements is a regression of house value on amenity levels, controlling for housing characteristics. Several scholars have developed methods to address the methodological challenges, such as endogeneity, faced by these “hedonic” regressions. Unfortunately, however, some recent studies neglect basic principles of hedonic estimation in Rosen [(1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1), 34–55]. After providing conceptual background, this article explains these hedonic “vices” and how to avoid them. We focus on inappropriate functional forms, inappropriate control variables, and misinterpretation of hedonic regression results. Our analysis is supported using data from the Cleveland area in 2000 and a simulation model.

This paper applies a discrete choice version of the household production framework to assess parents’ ex ante willingness to pay to reduce their child’s victimization from bullying at school. Willingness to pay is estimated using a bivariate probit model and a unique panel of 595 families from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development for 2000 to 2003. Empirical results find a statistically significant positive association between an elementary school child’s bully victimization and parents’ choice to change their child’s school in the subsequent sample period. Parents’ annual willingness to pay for reduced child bully victimization averages $130 and ranges from $54 for parents whose child was not bullied to $633 for parents whose child was bullied. Given current literature estimates of U.S. bullying prevalence and the cost and effectiveness of currently available anti-bullying programs, parental willingness to pay estimates suggest that U.S. households’ net annual return on investments in elementary school bullying prevention programs could be substantial.

Behavioral economists have identified certain biases in decision making that lead people to make decisions that harm themselves, but there is insufficient guidance for estimating benefits in the presence of such behavioral failures. This gap in principles and standards for benefit-cost analysis has led government agencies at times to adopt arbitrary and excessive benefit valuations. This article describes an approach to incorporating behavioral market failures into benefit estimation, first by advocating a behavioral transfer test to use before applying behavioral findings from narrow contexts to broader populations subject to regulation, and then by comparing the outcomes from the self-harming behavior to a policy reference point in which people are assumed to be fully informed and to act fully rationally in their own self-interest. This approach, which is grounded on systematic, well-documented, and context-specific findings of behavioral failings, would reduce instances of agencies assuming that behavioral findings in some contexts provide sufficient rationale for overriding consumer preferences in other contexts. It would also establish a consistent approach to government policy by, for example, creating symmetry between advancing policies that seek to discourage consumption of products for which consumers underestimate the health risks and fostering accurate risk beliefs to address erroneous individual choices based on risk overestimation.

With increased emphasis on encouraging students to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), there is a general concern that society is losing the benefits associated with liberal arts education. One possible approach to achieving the benefits of higher paying STEM degrees along with the social benefits of liberal arts training is to encourage double majoring among college students. Double majoring is common at about 20% of college graduates, yet most double majors are in related areas that provide limited educational diversity. We examine private and social benefits of double majoring using data from the 2010 National Survey of College Graduates. The strongest positive relations associated with combining a liberal arts major with a business or STEM major are on research and development activities and on job match. In addition, we find that students who double major in business and STEM earn a premium over those single majors. However, combining a liberal arts major with STEM or business fields does not increase earnings, indicating little private earnings incentive for students to combine STEM or business majors with liberal arts.

In our opinion, the challenges of ongoing measurement, the ever-moving behavioral baseline, and strategic self-ignorance return us full-circle to a sensible point made by Peter Bohm–Benefit-Cost Analysis for environmental goods should use an interval method.

Survey-based contingent valuation (CV) techniques are commonly used to value the potential effects of a policy change when market-based valuation of those effects is not possible. The results of these analyses are often intended to inform policy decisions, which are made within the context of formal policymaking institutions. These institutions are typically designed to reduce the large number of potential options for addressing any given policy problem to a binary choice between the continuation of current policy and a single, specified alternative. In this research we develop an approach for conducting CV exercises in a manner consistent with the decision structure typically faced by policymakers. The data generated from this approach allow for an estimate of willingness to pay (WTP) for a defined policy alternative, relative to leaving policy unchanged, which we argue is of direct interest to policymakers. We illustrate our approach within the context of policy governing the storage of used nuclear fuel in the United States. We value the policy option of constructing an interim storage facility relative to continuation of current policy, wherein used nuclear fuel is stored on-site at or near commercial nuclear generating plants. We close the paper with a discussion of the implications for future research and the role of CV in the policymaking process.

Government mandates to disclose information are a standard response to problems of asymmetric information. We examine recent major U.S. regulations issued between 2008 and 2013 to identify disclosure mandates and look for quantitative assessments of their effectiveness in improving comprehension. We also reviewed the retrospective regulatory review reports of four federal agencies – prepared pursuant to Executive Orders 13563 and 13579 – for analyses of existing mandates. We find that although mandated disclosures underpin a number of major federal regulatory initiatives, agencies infrequently issue such mandates based on scientifically valid, controlled studies of the improvements in comprehension from such disclosure. We also conduct four case studies drawn from the relatively few instances where federal agencies have evaluated improvements in comprehension, to identify current best practices. Finally, we recommend reforms to improve federally mandated information disclosure.

Critiques of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) are usually made on theoretical or methodological grounds; however, understanding how BCA is actually used in decision-making processes is critical if BCA is to inform policy-making. Our paper examines how the implementation of BCA within policy decision-making processes can serve to increase, rather than alleviate, controversy. This runs contrary to the standard assumption that BCA improves decision-making by providing objective data that serves as a basis for policy consensus. To frame this issue, we engage the literature on the role of science in policy decisions and the role of bureaucrats in understanding and implementing policy research. We introduce the concept of “Bureaucratic BCA” as a framework for the practical application of BCA; Bureaucratic BCA does not refer to BCA specifically conducted by bureaucrats or a lesser, technically inferior version of BCA, but rather acknowledges that BCA plays an interactive role within bureaucratic decision-making processes rather than simply serving as a sterilized information input. We show how the dynamics of BCA within the policy process can make BCA a source of controversy and waste rather than an aid to policy efficiency. In light of the Bureaucratic BCA framework, we provide recommendations as to how BCA can be implemented more productively.

If policymakers could measure the actual welfare effects of regulations, and if they had a properly capacious sense of welfare, they would not need to resort to cost-benefit analysis, which gives undue weight to some values and insufficient weight to others. Surveys of self-reported well-being provide valuable information, but it is not yet possible to “map” regulatory consequences onto well-being scales. It follows that at the present time, self-reported well-being cannot be used to assess the welfare effects of regulations. Nonetheless, greatly improved understandings are inevitable, and current findings with respect to reported well-being – above all the serious adverse effects of unemployment – deserve to play a role in regulatory policymaking.

This article presents a green roof cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Green roofs are roofs which are partially or completely covered by vegetation. We discuss the benefits and costs of light self-sustaining vegetated roofs. The benefits of the ecosystem services (ES) provided by green roofs can be classified into private and public benefits. We apply the selected valuation methods first in Helsinki, Finland and subsequently explain how results can be transferred to other urban locations. Past research and this study show that private benefits are usually not high enough to justify the expensive investment for a private decision maker. However, when the public benefits are added to the private benefits, social benefits are higher than the costs of green roofs in most cases.

Past research quantified most types of the benefits, excluding scenic and biodiversity benefits. Scenic benefits denote the intangible benefits that people derive from the presence of green space, including at least aesthetic and psychological ones. In this article, special emphasis is placed on the valuation of the scenic benefits; these are among the most challenging benefits to valuate in monetary terms. We employ hedonic pricing theory, implemented via spatial regression models, and green roof implementation scenarios in order to estimate the aggregate willingness to pay for a “unit” of green roof. The results show that the scenic benefits can be a significant attribute in cost-benefit calculations. Yet, the amount of benefits strongly depends on the green roof design.

Numerous regulatory reform proposals would require federal agencies to conduct more thorough economic analysis of proposed regulations or expand the resources and influence of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which currently reviews executive branch regulations. Such reforms are intended to improve the quality of economic analysis agencies produce when they issue major regulations. We employ newly gathered data on variation in current administrative procedures to assess the likely effects of proposed regulatory process reforms on the quality of agencies’ regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). Our results suggest that greater use of advance notices of proposed rulemakings for major regulations, advance consultation with regulated entities, use of advisory committees, and expansion of OIRA’s resources and role would improve the quality of RIAs. They also suggest pre-proposal public meetings with stakeholders are associated with lower quality analysis.

Individuals who are compromised in their ability to either believe in or plan for their future will make very different valuations of future benefits than will those who have more means and capabilities. These valuations could apply across a wide spectrum, from health care and insurance to investments in education to retirement savings. Data based on time trade-offs and other hypothetical questions will lead to large gaps in contingency valuations which, taken at face value, would lead to regressive outcomes. Individuals who discount the future are unlikely to be responsive to information intended to mitigate risk or to nudges designed to guide behavior away from risky choices. For example, these differential responses result in particular preventive policies having much less than the intended benefit values. Subjective well-being metrics can help circumvent the problem by comparing the reported well-being of individuals who are actually in different arrangements, such as those who have taken up health insurance or not, or in different work arrangements. Still, subjective well-being metrics are a compliment and not a substitute for the standard data that is used in BCA.

Air pollution makes us feel bad when we think about it – but do bad air days really affect our subjective well-being (SWB) when we are not thinking about them? And if so, do they affect the range of possible measures of SWB in similar ways? Using data from over 165,000 individuals in the UK, we model evaluative, experiential and eudemonic SWB as a function of demographic and local area characteristics including the background concentration of particulate matter. Our results indicate that air pollution adversely affects all of the positive measure of SWB included in our analysis; how satisfied people report being with their lives overall, how happy they report feeling on the previous day and how worthwhile they rate their activities as being, and that it does so over and above its effects on self-reported health. These effects can be monetized and may imply greater priority being afforded to pollution abatement programs than is currently warranted based on existing estimates of the health effects alone.