Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- 2 Preferences and the Idea of Utility
- 3 Benefit–Cost Analysis
- 4 Decision Analysis
- 5 Valuing Intangibles and Other Non-Market Outcomes
- 6 Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- 7 Preferences over Time and across Space
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
3 - Benefit–Cost Analysis
from Part I - Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2017
Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- 2 Preferences and the Idea of Utility
- 3 Benefit–Cost Analysis
- 4 Decision Analysis
- 5 Valuing Intangibles and Other Non-Market Outcomes
- 6 Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- 7 Preferences over Time and across Space
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theory and Practice in Policy AnalysisIncluding Applications in Science and Technology, pp. 51 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Ackerman, F. (1997a). “Utility and Welfare II: Modern Economic Alternatives,” in Ackerman, F., Kiron, D., Goodwin, N.R., Harris, J.M., and Gallagher, K. (eds.), Human Well-Being and Economic Goals, Island Press, pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. (1997b). “Applied Welfare Economics: Externalities, Valuation, and Cost-Benefit Analysis,” in Ackerman, F., Kiron, D., Goodwin, N.R., Harris, J.M., and Gallagher, K. (eds.), Human Well-Being and Economic Goals, Island Press, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar
Adler, M.D. and Posner, E.A. (2006). New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Harvard University Press, 236pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthoff, D., Hepburn, C., and Tol, R.S.J. (2009). “Equity Weighting and the Marginal Damaged Cost of Climate Change,” Ecological Economics, 68, pp. 836–849.Google Scholar
Anthoff, D. and Tol, R.S.J. (2010). “On International Equity and National Decision Making on Climate Change,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 60(1), pp. 14–20.Google Scholar
Arrow, K., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., and Stavins, R.N. (1996). “Is There a Role for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation?,” Science, 272, pp. 221–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birsch, D. and Fielder, J.H. (eds.) (1994). The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business, and Technology, State University of New York Press, 312pp.Google Scholar
Boadway, R. (1976). “Integrating Equity and Efficiency in Applied Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), pp. 541–556.Google Scholar
Campen, J.T. (1986). Benefit, Cost and Beyond: The Political Economy of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Ballinger, 240pp.Google Scholar
Crain, W.M. (2005). The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, No. 264, Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, 87pp.Google Scholar
DeKay, M.L., Small, M.J., Fischbeck, P.S., Farrow, R.S., Cullen, A., Kadane, J.B., Lave, L.B., Morgan, M.G., and Takemura, K. (2002). “Risk-Based Decision Analysis in Support of Precautionary Policies,” Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), pp. 391–417.Google Scholar
Dupuit, J. (1844). “De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics,” reprinted in Revue française d’économie, 10, pp. 55–94, 1995. Available at: www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rfeco_0769-0479_1995_num_10_2_978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekelund, R.B., Jr. and Hébert, R.F. (1999). Secret Origins of Modern Microeconomics: Dupuit and the Engineers, University of Chicago Press, 468pp.Google Scholar
EO 12291 (1981). “Executive Order 12291–Federal Regulation.” Available at: www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12291.html.Google Scholar
EPA (1997). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990, Report to Congress. Downloadable in sections at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwRepNumLookup/EE-Fox0295?OpenDocument.Google Scholar
EPA (2009). Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule, U.S. Federal Register, 74(239), pp. 66496–66546.Google Scholar
EPA (2010). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010, Report to Congress, EPA-410-R-99-001, 654pp. Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/fullrept.pdf.Google Scholar
EPA (2011). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, EPA-452/R-11-011, December.Google Scholar
EPA SAB (2010). Review of the Final Integrated Report for the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 18pp. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebReportsLastFiveCOUNCIL/1E6218DE3BFF682E852577FB005D46F1/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-11-001-unsigned.pdf.Google Scholar
EU (2000). Communication from the European Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Available at: www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-4.html.Google Scholar
Fox, I.K. and Herfindahl, O.C. (1964). “Attainment of Efficiency in Satisfying Demands for Water Resources,” The American Economic Review, 54(3), pp. 198–206.Google Scholar
Graham, J.D. (2008). “Saving Lives through Administrative Law and Economics,” The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, pp. 395–540.Google Scholar
Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J. et al. (2015). “Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Informing Decisions: From Promise to Practice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 112(24), pp. 7348–7355.Google Scholar
Hammond, R.J. (1966). “Convention and Limitation in Benefit-Cost Analysis,” Natural Resources Journal, 6(2), pp. 195–222.Google Scholar
Harberger, A.C. (1978). “On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, 86(2), pp. S87–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, W. (2006). Grading Estimates of the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulation, RFF Discussion Paper DP 06-39, 44pp.Google Scholar
Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morgenstern, R. (2009). Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, Resources for the Future, 246pp.Google Scholar
Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R.D., and Nelson, P. (2000). “On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(2), pp. 297–322.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. (1936). “Distribution and Economic Progress: A Revised Version,” The Review of Economic Studies, 4(1), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Hills, A. and Morgan, M.G. (1981). “Telecommunications in Alaskan Villages: A Technical, Economic, and Institutional Analysis,” Science, 211, pp. 241–248.Google Scholar
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2010). “Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866,” U.S. Government.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, M.W. (1976). The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis, University of Chicago Press, 162pp.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. (1936). “Wage Subsidies as a Remedy for Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, pp. 721–742.Google Scholar
Keeney, R.L. (1990). “Mortality Risks Induced by Economic Expenditures,” Risk Analysis, 10, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A.J. and Portney, P.R. (1991). “Controlling Urban Air Pollution: A Benefit-Cost Assessment,” Science, 252, pp. 522–528.Google Scholar
Lave, L.B. (1996). “Chapter 6: Benefit-Cost Analysis: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs?” in Hahn, R.W. (ed.), Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation, Oxford University Press, pp. 104–134.Google Scholar
Lave, L.B., Wecker, W., Reis, W. et al. (1990). “Controlling Emissions from Motor Vehicles: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Vehicle Emission Control Alternatives,” Environmental Science & Technology, 24(8), pp. 1128–1135.Google Scholar
Masood, E. (1995). “Developing Countries Dispute Use of Figures on Climate Change Impact,” Nature, 376, p. 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishan, E.J. (1973). Economics for Social Decisions: Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Praeger, 151pp.Google Scholar
Moore, J.C. (2007). General Equilibrium and Welfare Economics: An Introduction, Springer, 576pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. (1992). “Prudent Avoidance,” Public Utility Fortnightly, 129(6), pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
Nair, I., Morgan, M.G., and Florig, H.K. (1989). Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper, Publ. No. OTA-BP-E-53, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.Google Scholar
NHTSA (2014). “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear Visibility: Final Rule,” published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2014. Available at: www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/07/2014-07469/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-visibility.Google Scholar
NRC (2000). Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Academy Press, 344pp.Google Scholar
NRC (2017). Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon, U.S. National Academy Press, 394pp.Google Scholar
OMB (2005). Validating Regulatory Analysis: 2005 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Executive Office of the President, 94pp. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol-reports_congress.html.Google Scholar
Pearce, F. (1995). “Price of Life Sends Temperatures Soaring,” New Scientist, April 1, p. 5.Google Scholar
Persky, J. (2001). “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Classical Creed,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
Pindyck, R.S. (2013). “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?,” Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), pp. 860–872.Google Scholar
Porter, T.M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton University Press, 310pp.Google Scholar
Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (1999). Introduction to Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, 385pp.Google Scholar
Socolow, R.H. (1976). “Chapter 1: Failures of Discourse,” in Feiveson, H.A., Sinden, F.W., and Socolow, R.H. (eds.), Boundaries of Analysis: An Inquiry into the Tocks Island Dam Controversy, Ballinger, 417pp.Google Scholar
Starr, C. (1969). “Social Benefits versus Technological Risk,” Science, 165, pp. 1232–1238.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2013a). “Regulatory Moneyball: What Washington Can Learn from Sports Geeks,” Foreign Affairs, 92 (May/June), pp. 9–13.Google Scholar
Weyant, J. (2015). “Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models,” Draft Manuscript, Stanford, 35pp.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1981). “Richer Is Safer,” Financial Analysis Journal, 37, pp. 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar