What’s wrong with the back of the envelope? A call for simple (and timely) benefit–cost analysis

Regulation and Governance
by Chris Carrigan, Assistant Professor, & Stuart Shapiro, Associate Professor
May 02, 2016

Download the full text from the journal, Regulation and Governance, Volume 10, Issue 1

Abstract

Observers across the ideological spectrum have criticized benefit–cost analysis for as long as it has been part of the rulemaking process. Still, proponents and detractors agree that analysis has morphed into a mechanism often used by agencies to justify regulatory decisions already made. We argue that a simpler analysis of more alternatives conducted earlier in the regulatory process can resuscitate it as a tool to inform policy. Recognizing that requiring a procedure does not ensure that regulators will follow it, we offer possible remedies, including strengthening or relaxing subsequent review of proposed rules, which raise the cost of circumventing the reform or lower the cost of following it.

Read the full article.

Citation: Carrigan, C., and Shapiro, S. (2016) What's wrong with the back of the envelope? A call for simple (and timely) benefit–cost analysis. Regulation & Governance, doi: 10.1111/rego.12120.


Chris Carrigan and Stuart Shapiro are affiliated scholars with the GW Regulatory Studies Center.

Read the pre-publication working paper.