Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis

Luke R. Dennin and Nicholas Z. Muller find that the benefits of shifting away from coal are widespread while the costs are concentrated. They propose a method of funding this transition; how would you finance it? See the open access article at <https://buff.ly/4gApjmU>

Natasha Schmitt Caccia Salinas and Lucas Thevenard Gomes investigate the use of regulatory impact assessments by the Brazilian health regulatory agency (Anvisa). They find that Anvisa failed to provide compelling justifications for exempting RIA in emergency regulations in several cases and avoids ex post reviews when RIAs are waived due to emergencies. See more at <https://buff.ly/4gjmO8T>. Did we mention this article is open access?

In 2023, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance documents that specified new procedures for assessing prospective government regulations (Circular A-4) and economic policies more generally (Circular A-94). These revisions to long-standing guidance were not minor updates but shifted policy analyses from an efficiency-oriented perspective to a redistributive approach. Read more from Kip Viscusi at <https://buff.ly/4evtq2o>.

Start Your Benefit-Cost Analysis Journey: Learn the Basics in Our January Professional Development Workshop! <https://buff.ly/4gzTc6U>

In "Is Communications-Company Ownership of Video Content a Threat to Competition?", Robert Crandall provides evidence from the financial markets that carrier integration into video production has not redounded to the benefit of these companies’ stockholders. <https://buff.ly/49A9Fpo>

What's happening 3 months from today, you ask? Why, our in-person Annual Conference at The George Washington University, Washington, DC! <https://buff.ly/3v5PQnB>

Check out our recently published special issue dedicated to the memory of Jerry Ellig, with an introduction by Susan Dudley <https://buff.ly/3ZtC2AS>

Looking for some weekend reading? Then look no further than Regulatory Impact Analysis and Litigation Risk By Chistopher Carrigan, Jerry Ellig, and Zhoudan Xie When a rule is challenged in court and an agency describes how the RIA was used to decide its decision, a higher quality RIA lowers the risk that a rule is overturned, and a lower quality RIA increases the risk that a rule is overturned. Abstract This paper explores the role of microeconomic analysis in policy formulation by assessing how the regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) that federal regulatory agencies prepare for important proposed rules may affect outcomes when regulations are challenged in court. Conventional wisdom among economists and senior regulatory officials in federal agencies suggests that high-quality economic analysis can help a regulation survive such challenges, particularly when the agency explains how the analysis affected decisions. However, highlighting the economic analysis may also increase the risk a regulation could be overturned by inviting court scrutiny of the RIA. Using a dataset of economically significant, prescriptive regulations proposed between 2008 and 2013, we put these conjectures to the test, studying the relationships between the quality of the RIA accompanying each rule, the agency’s explanation of how the analysis influenced its rulemaking decisions, and whether the rule was overturned when challenged in court. The regression results suggest that higher-quality RIAs are associated with a lower likelihood that the associated rules are later invalidated by courts, provided that the agency explained how it used the RIA in its decisions. Similarly, when the agency described how the RIA was used, a poor-quality analysis appears to increase the likelihood that the regulation is overturned, perhaps because it invites a greater level of court scrutiny. In contrast, when the agency does not describe how the RIA was utilized, there is no correlation between the quality of analysis and the likelihood that the regulation will be invalidated.

Today's paper: Regulatory Reform: Results and Challenges (https://lnkd.in/gmTuwg_c) By Susan Dudley (Administrator of OIRA, Bush Administration) and the late Jerry Ellig This article describes the rationale behind, results of, and challenges from three approaches used in the U.S. to achieve better regulatory outcomes: the removal of “economic” regulations in certain sectors; regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of new “social” regulations; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations. Abstract Over the last century, the United States has witnessed three approaches to achieving better regulatory outcomes: the removal of “economic” regulations in certain sectors; regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of new “social” regulations; and retrospective analysis of existing regulations. This article reviews the rationale for each approach, the results to date, and the remaining challenges. It finds that both institutional and technical factors influence the success of reform efforts.

What are we reading? Making Cost-Benefit Analysis Cool Again (With Some Speculations on the Right and the Left) by Cass Susstein! <https://buff.ly/4g5fVHP>