Open Access
Three Stages in the Use of Cost-benefit Analysis as a Tool for Evaluating U.S. Regulatory Policy
Loading...
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1830-7736
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI MWP LS; 2012/05
Cite
LIVERMORE, Michael A., REVESZ, Richard L., Three Stages in the Use of Cost-benefit Analysis as a Tool for Evaluating U.S. Regulatory Policy, EUI MWP LS, 2012/05 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/22774
Abstract
Over the last thirty years a three-stage evolution has taken place in American politics with regard to the use of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for evaluating regulation. During that time, the appeal of costbenefit analysis has shifted from one side of the aisle to the other. In the first stage, in the early 1980s, the Republican Party adopted cost-benefit analysis as a way of constraining regulation. Many progressive groups fought back by rejecting cost-benefit analysis altogether. Several years ago, in a second stage, some progressive groups finally started to speak the language of cost-benefit analysis and it looked like a consensus approach might emerge. But the economic crisis of 2008 has led the way to a third stage in which conservatives, who began to realize that cost-benefit analysis could justify stringent regulation, reframed the debate to one about jobs. The essay argues that, despite pleas to abandon the technique, cost-benefit analysis has proven robust, in part because it provides a common ground where all interests are given weight.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
The lecture was delivered by Richard L. Revesz on 20 June 2012.