Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:41:08.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucratic Benefit-Cost Analysis and Policy Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2016

Ryan P. Scott ,
Tyler A. Scott  and
Richard Zerbe
Ryan P. Scott*
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Daniel J Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, Box 353055, Seattle, Washington, United States, e-mail: ryscott5@uw.edu
Tyler A. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, School of Public and International Affairs, Department of Public Administration and Policy, 204 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602, United States
Richard Zerbe
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Daniel J Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, Box 353055, Seattle, Washington, United States
*
*e-mail: ryscott5@uw.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

D78environmenthistorylaw and regulationlocallocal politicsregionalretrospective benefit coststatetheory
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 2016 , pp. 350 - 371
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, I. E.(1948). Floods of the Puyallup and Chehalis River Basins Washington. Water-Supply Paper. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, US GPO.Google Scholar
Barry, J. M. (2007). Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D. & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 59–103). Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R. & Weimer, D. L.(2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.Google Scholar
Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A. & Weimer, D. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Boardman, A., Vining, A. & Waters, W. G. (1993). Costs and benefits through bureaucratic lenses: example of a highway project. J. Policy Analysis and Management, 12(3), 532–555.Google Scholar
Caulkins, J. P. (2002). Using models that incorporate uncertainty. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(3), 486–491.Google Scholar
Cech, T. V. (2009). Principles of Water Resources: History, Development, Management, and Policy. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chehalis Basin Flood Authority (2008). Chehalis Basin Flood Authority Meeting Notes. Chehalis, WA.Google Scholar
Chehalis Basin Flood Authority (2009). Approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Lewis County, Acting as the Lead Agency for the Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority and Public Utility District No. 1 for Funding of a Phase II Study of Water Retention Facilities for Flood Control. Resolution No. 09-129.Google Scholar
Chehalis Basin Partnership (2008). Meeting Summary: Chehalis Basin Partnership. Rochester, Washington.Google Scholar
Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority (2008). An Interlocal Agreement Among the Communities of the Chehalis River Basin for Study, Analysis, and Implementation of Flood Control Projects to Protect the Chehalis River Basin. Lewis County, Washington.Google Scholar
Cook, J. H. (2013). Principles and standards for benefit-cost analysis of public health preparedness and pandemic mitigation programs. In Scott Farrow, R. & Zerbe, Richard O. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council Governments (2009). Lewis County 2007 Flood Disaster Recovery Strategy.Google Scholar
EES Consulting (2011). Chehalis River Flood Water Retention Project Phase IIB Feasibility Study.Google Scholar
Farrow, R. S. & Viscusi, W. K. (2011). Towards principles and standards for the benefit-cost analysis of safety. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(03), 1–25.Google Scholar
Farrow, S. & Zerbe, R. O. (2013). Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Ohlson, D. & Mcdaniels, T. L. (2006). Some pitfalls of an overemphasis on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research, 9(7), 717–735.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. W. & Sunstein, C. R. (2002). A new executive order for improving federal regulation? Deeper and wider cost-benefit analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 1489–1552.Google Scholar
Hintz, N. C.(1982). Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Study. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Hurley, P.(1931). Report from the Chief of Engineers on Chehalis River Wash., Covering Navigation, Flood Control, Power Development, and Irrigation. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1982). Professional roles for policy analysts: a critical assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2(1), 88–100.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keeler, A. G. (2016). A modest proposal for the extension of nonmarket valuation methods. Economic Inquiry, 54(1), 719–724.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A., Morgenstern, R., Batz, M., Nelson, P., Burtraw, D., Shih, J.-S. & McWilliams, M. (2006). In Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices under Uncertainty. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Lewis County Public Utility District (2008). Concept Paper: Discussion of Chehalis River Basin Flooding and Solutions. Chehalis WA.Google Scholar
Lewis County Public Utility District (2009). Chehalis River Water Retention Facilities Potential Study: DRAFT.Google Scholar
Lipton, D., Lew, D. K., Wallmo, K., Wiley, P. & Dvarskas, A. (2015). The evolution of non-market valuation of US coastal and marine resources. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics,(1), 6–31.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. B. (2014). Economic valuation: concepts and empirical methods. In Fisher, M. M. & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Science (pp. 973–992). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Merrifield, J. (1997). Sensitivity analysis in benefit cost analysis: a key to increased use and acceptance. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(3), 82–92.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. G., Henrion, M. & Small, M. (1992). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology: Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, 2(2), 175–220.Google Scholar
Partnership, Chehalis Basin (2009). Chehalis Basin Partnership Organization and Membership. http://www.chehalisbasinpartnership.org/membership/organization%20&%20membership.htm.Google Scholar
Poor, A., Lindquist, K. & Wendt, M.(2008). Transportation Synthesis Report: Flooding in the Chehalis River Basin: Synthesis, Washington State Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: In Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Postman, D.(2007). Bush Authorizes Flood Aid for Individuals in Lewis and Grays Harbor Counties. December 9, The Seattle Times.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E.(2009). Chehalis Tribe to Vote Against Dam Funding. March 18, The Chronicle.Google Scholar
Seawright, J. & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(June), 295–308.Google Scholar
Secretary of War (1944). Chehalis River and Tributaries, Washington Letter from the Secretary of War. Washington DC, GPO.Google Scholar
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc, and Triangle Associates (2003). Multi-Purpose Water Storage Assessment. Chehalis Basin Partnership.Google Scholar
The Chronicle (2009). Flood Authority Moves Forward on Upper Chehalis River Dam Study.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. & Weise Moeller, E. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Vol. 36. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
US Army Corps of Engineers (2003). Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Project Report Final General Reevaluation.Google Scholar
US Army Corps of Engineers (2012). Centralia Flood Risk Management Project: Draft Closeout Report.Google Scholar
Vining, A. & Weimer, D. L. (2010). An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 1(01), 1–40.Google Scholar
Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. R. (2010). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wolcher, L. E. (2007). Senseless kindness: the politics of cost-benefit analysis. Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 25(1), 1–57.Google Scholar
Zerbe, R. O., Davis, T. B., Garland, N. & Scott, T. (2013). In Scott Farrow, R. & Zerbe, Richard O. (Eds.), Principles and Standards for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Richard. O. & Scott, Tyler. A. (2015). Benefit-cost analysis and integrated data systems. In Fantuzzo, John & Culhane, Dennis P. (Eds.), Actionable Intelligence: Using Integrated Data Systems to Achieve a More Effective, Efficient, and Ethical Government. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar