The goal of natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) is to compensate the public for losses to natural resources from past or ongoing hazardous releases, including losses that may persist into the future. Compensation is delivered in the form of restoration projects. Resolving NRDA liability requires balancing losses and restoration benefits over multiple decades and converting them into a present value for calculating appropriate damages. For the past two decades, NRDA practitioners have used a real discount rate of 3 % to convert losses and benefits to a present value equivalent. That rate was based, in part, on real historical yields on risk-free debt (e.g., the real rate of return on 3-month Treasury bills). Declining interest rates on risk-free debt in recent years has led to suggestions to reexamine the historical consensus discount rate. This paper reviews two alternative conceptual paradigms for selecting a discount rate in NRDA cases: the social rate of time preference and discount rates for tort cases. We summarize historical data for empirically implementing the two paradigms and discuss the ramifications of the different options. Based on our review, we suggest maintaining the 3 % consensus as a practical solution to a range of empirical candidates within the two conceptual paradigms.

Socioeconomic evaluation of a public investment helps to understand its value for the community, and it also improves an investment by analyzing its different components, and the risks inherent in its completion. The Act of 31 December 2012 about Public Finance Planning makes it mandatory in France for project sponsors to conduct an ex-ante socioeconomic evaluation of all public civil investments made by the State and its public institutions. An independent counter-expert assessment of the ex-ante socioeconomic evaluation is conducted for the largest projects. A permanent committee of experts has been established to specify the methodological rules for socioeconomic evaluation and define the studies and research necessary.

This article has three sections, each of which deals with an Executive Order. The first section, “Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Past,” emphasizes the critical role that Executive Orders played in the formation of OIRA. More specifically, OIRA owes its initial existence to the establishment of a centralized regulatory review system, the Quality of Life Review, which initiated Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of environmental regulations through the issuance of a directive from OMB. Every subsequent President expanded OMBs powers through the issuance of Executive Orders which culminated in the Iconic Executive Order 12291. The section concludes with the recommendation that a select class of Executive Orders, and OMB Directives, be designated as “Iconic” by the National Archivist in consultation with the OIRA, and then given substantial deference by incoming Administrations. The second section, “OIRA Present,” describes an Executive Order issued during the Kennedy Administration which remains in effect but was promulgated prior to the establishment of OIRA and therefore recommends that a new Executive Order be issued which gives OIRA specific authority to participate in the conduct of interagency reviews of Executive Orders. The third section, “OIRA Future,” describes an Executive Order which implements a regulatory budget (RB) and institutionalizes a mechanism for controlling the size of the administrative state. This final section of the article recommends that the aforementioned Executive Order be reviewed and modified based upon the outcome of a request for public comments, and rules with demonstrated positive net benefits should no longer be accorded an automatic entitlement for issuance as a final rule absent their inclusion in an RB.

Households in the USA spend about $70 billion annually on pets. Dogs, the most common pet, can be found in nearly half of American households. An important shadow price in the analysis of policies affecting human mortality is the value of statistical life (VSL), which is imputed from how people make decisions involving tradeoffs between small mortality risks and other goods. The value of statistical dog life (VSDL) is also an important, but until now unavailable, shadow price for use in regulation of such goods as pet foods and environmental toxins. Additionally, an estimate of the VSDL would have uses outside the regulatory process in valuing programs involving zooeyia, in setting tort awards for wrongful dog death, and in property divisions in divorce settlements where joint custody of dogs is not feasible. In order to estimate the VSDL, we conducted a contingent valuation of a national sample of dog owners that elicited willingness-to-pay for changes in mortality risk for pet dogs. Specifically, respondents were asked about willingness-to-pay for a vaccine that would reduce the risk of canine influenza. The design included both quantity (different magnitudes of risk reduction from the offered vaccine) and quality (differences in nature of death from the influenza) treatments as scope tests. It also included treatments involving spillover effects to other dogs and a priming question about disposable income. Based on the analysis and consideration of its assumptions, we recommend $10,000 as the VSDL.

In this study, I examine how the regulatory analysis practices of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent regulatory agency, changed when the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 relaxed its statutory obligations to conduct benefit-cost analysis (BCA). When given discretion, the agency dropped the practice despite significant institutional experience in conducting regulatory BCA and a history of using BCA as a key input to regulatory decisions. While the decision reflects an agency belief that omitting BCA would speed rulemaking under the CPSIA, the results have been mixed. Moreover, choosing to forego BCA-based decision-making fundamentally changed the agency’s regulatory portfolio. In contrast to the typical rule CPSC historically supported with BCA findings, many of the CPSIA rules impose significant economic burdens yet appear to yield negligible benefits. The CPSC would have been unlikely to have pursued the CPSIA rulemakings on its own because it could not have made the necessary BCA findings.

Although federal regulation of vehicle fuel economy is often seen as environmental policy, over 70% of the estimated benefits of the 2017–2025 federal standards are savings in consumer expenditures on gasoline. Rational-choice economists question the counting of these benefits since studies show that the fuel efficiency of a car is reflected in its price at sale and resale. We contribute to this debate by exploring why most consumers in the United States do not purchase a proven fuel-saving innovation: the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV). A database of 110 vehicle pairs is assembled where a consumer can choose a hybrid or gasoline version of virtually the same vehicle. Few choose the HEV. A total cost of ownership model is used to estimate payback periods for the price premiums associated with the HEV choice. In a majority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is sufficient to understand consumer disinterest in the HEV. However, in a significant minority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is not readily apparent, even when non-pecuniary attributes (e.g., performance and cargo space) are considered. Future research should examine, from a behavioral economics perspective, why consumers do not choose HEVs when pricing and payback periods appear to be favorable.

Crime is an important outcome in many social policy evaluations. Benefits to society from preventing crime are based on avoiding victimization and freeing criminal justice system resources. For the latter, analysts need information about the marginal cost of policing for different types of crime across jurisdictions; however, this information is not readily available. This paper details key economic concepts relevant to law enforcement services, and then combines publicly available police expenditure data with insights from observational and time-diary studies to generate state-level, crime-specific, average variable cost estimates for crime-response services conducted by police by crime type. Since there is considerable uncertainty concerning various parameters underpinning these calculations, we use Monte Carlo simulation methods to incorporate the uncertainty into our estimates. This study finds that the U.S. population-weighted average variable cost of law enforcement response per police-reported Part 1 violent crime is $10,900, ranging from $6900 to $15,400 at the 10th and 90th percentiles, respectively. For a Part 1 property crime, the equivalent figure is $1300, with a range from $700 to $1700.

Practitioners of benefit-cost analysis face many difficulties. Despite the best training, guidance, and intentions, practitioners can stumble: actual benefit-cost analysis is hard and mistakes get made. Over the years, I have collected the mistakes I have seen in actual benefit-cost analyses. Many of the same mistakes occur over and over: the pitfalls of practical benefit-cost analysis. In this paper, I describe common pitfalls and suggest ways to avoid them.

Agencies are frequently required to analyze the impact of their decisions, particularly in the context of regulatory policy. Advocates of analysis have championed the transparency benefit of these requirements. But there has been very little attention paid to the effectiveness of analysis in spurring useful participation in practice. This article examines how analysis can hinder and motivate public participation. Interviews were conducted with 48 analysts (including economists, risk assessors, and environmental impact assessors). In addition I conducted a case study on a unique method for using analysis in partnership with participation, the use of panels of small business owners to evaluate a regulatory proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). I find that participation in agency decisions as a result of traditional analytical requirements has been very uneven. Examples of success exist but so do cases where participation may be deterred by the density and complexity of analysis as well as cases of massive letter-writing campaigns ignored by decision-makers. I recommend a move toward simpler and earlier analysis, and the use of panels (such as described in the case study) to better take advantage of the potential synergy between analysis and participation.

In this paper we review the benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) made to support applications for authorisations under the EU’s REACH Regulation on hazardous chemicals. Experiences from over 100 cases suggest that there are a number of informational and methodological challenges to overcome in these BCAs. In particular, we find that many REACH applicants have had problems explaining the societal relevance of the regulatory impacts expected to affect them and other market actors. Adapting the framework for regulatory impact assessment proposed by Dudley et al. [(2017). Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 8, 187–204], we discuss these impacts from a welfare economics perspective and make suggestions on how to improve current practices in BCA applied to chemicals risk management. From this discussion we then distill a number of topics that deserve more attention in applied BCAs under the REACH Regulation.

Although more than 100 billion dollars is spent each year on policing, we know very little about what works, and still less about whether the benefits of various policing policies and practices outweigh the costs. In particular, although there has been some important work done to assess the effects of various practices, and even to monetize some of the benefits of reducing crime, there has been virtually no attention paid to the other side of the benefit-cost equation: the social costs that particular policing practices potentially can impose. In February 2017, the Policing Project at NYU School of Law held a conference aimed at jumpstarting the use of benefit-cost analysis to assess policing practices, and to begin to tackle the many methodological challenges to doing so. Here, we provide an overview of the existing literature, identify the serious gaps that remain, and sketch out a research agenda for moving forward.

Executive Order (EO) 13771 on “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” introduces a new regulatory budgeting system in the U.S. federal rulemaking process. International experience suggests that the new rule, aimed both at reducing the number of regulations and the volume of regulatory costs, will focus on a subset of regulatory impacts, most certainly the direct costs imposed by regulation on businesses, or even a subset thereof. The paper discusses possible ways to make sense of the new rule, without undermining the soundness of benefit-cost analysis mandated by EO12866. The paper concludes that the new system, while potentially promoting more retrospective regulatory reviews, will risk fundamentally affecting the quality of regulation in the United States, generating frictions and inefficiencies throughout the administration, to the detriment of social welfare.

Law enforcement agencies are adopting a variety of new surveillance technologies at a fast pace. These technologies could have substantial benefits in terms of public safety, but, for many of them, their ability to reduce crime is unknown. Although a small experimental literature addresses some of these technologies, many of the implementations have been too small to provide an accurate measurement of their potential. In this paper, I explore the advantages and make general suggestions about the use of quasi-experimental methodologies in estimating the public safety benefits of police technology. I also consider the specific case of license plate readers and provide some examples of difference-in-differences approaches that could be used to study their efficacy.

The police are widely recognized as an important deterrent of crime, with investments in policing broadly associated with lower crime rates. Much less is known about how investments in policing contribute to crime reductions, or the relative merits and risks of specific activities in which officers engage, leaving policing as an area in which benefit-cost analysis methods stand to make a significant substantive contribution. However, the implementation of these methods involves challenges related to measuring both the quantity and quality of policing involved in a given dosage of policing, as well as the causal effects of police practices on crime. This essay lays out several of the challenges inherent in understanding the benefits and costs of policing practices, with a specific eye toward practices commonly known as “proactive policing” practices, and their effects on crime rates. I lay out potential strategies for resolving these challenges, which focus largely on identifying exogenous discontinuities in policing practices that can be used to assess outcome differences. Thorough assessment of policing practices should apply as many of these strategies as possible, in order to understand how robust or sensitive substantive conclusions may be to strategies used.

Regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) weigh the benefits of regulations against the burdens they impose and are invaluable tools for informing decision makers. We offer 10 tips for nonspecialist policymakers and interested stakeholders who will be reading RIAs as consumers.

1. 1. Core problem: Determine whether the RIA identifies the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address.

2. 2. Alternatives: Look for an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives.

3. 3. Baseline: Check whether the RIA presents a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured.

4. 4. Increments: Evaluate whether totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs.

5. 5. Uncertainty: Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty, and ask what effect key assumptions, data, and models have on those estimates.

6. 6. Transparency: Look for transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs.

7. 7. Benefits: Examine how projected benefits relate to stated objectives.

8. 8. Costs: Understand what costs are included.

9. 9. Distribution: Consider how benefits and costs are distributed.

10. 10. Symmetrical treatment: Ensure that benefits and costs are presented symmetrically.

The provision of safe drinking water provides a dramatic example of the inherent complexity involved in incorporating environmental justice (EJ) considerations into the implementation and enforcement of new environmental standards. To promote substantive EJ, implementation policy must be concerned with the net risk reduction of new and revised regulations. The regulatory concern is that higher water bills for low-income customers of small public water systems may result in less disposable income for other health-related goods and services. In the net, this trade-off may be welfare decreasing, not increasing. Advocates of Health–Health Analysis have argued that the reduction in health-related spending creates a problem for traditional benefit-cost analysis since the long-run health implications of this reduction are not considered. The results of this investigation tend to support this contention. An evaluation of the internal structure of consumption expenditures reveals that low-expenditure households can be expected to react to an increase in the relative price of housing-related goods and services due to a water-rate hike by reducing both housing and health-related expenditures. That is, the representative low-expenditure household re-establishes equilibrium by not only decreasing housing-related spending, but also by decreasing spending on health-related expenditures in a modest but significant way. These results reflect the fact that expenditures on housing are a major proportion of overall household spending, and that accommodating drinking water surcharges exacerbates both health and food security concerns for low-expenditures households.

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 paper reports on a benefit-cost analysis of a targeted intervention program, the YouthBuild USA Offender Project (YBOP), aimed at low-income, criminal offenders who are 16–24 years old. Using data on 388 participants, we find: (1) evidence of reduced recidivism and improved educational outcomes that exceed our expectations based on similar cohorts and (2) evidence consistent with a positive benefit-cost ratio, indicating that every dollar spent on the YBOP is estimated to produce a return on investment between $7.20 and $21.60, with benefits to society ranging between $174,000 and $281,000 per participant at a cost to society between $13,000 and $24,000.