A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

  Subjects -> SOCIAL SERVICES AND WELFARE (Total: 224 journals)
The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice.
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Number of Followers: 2  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 2194-5888 - ISSN (Online) 2152-2812
Published by Cambridge University Press Homepage  [353 journals]
  • BCA volume 12 issue 3 Cover and Front matter

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Pages: 1 - 2
      PubDate: 2021-11-26
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.15
       
  • BCA volume 12 issue 3 Cover and Back matter

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Pages: 1 - 1
      PubDate: 2021-11-26
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.16
       
  • The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to
           Fix It

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Flyvbjerg; Bent, Bester, Dirk W.
      Pages: 395 - 419
      Abstract: Most cost-benefit analyses assume that the estimates of costs and benefits are more or less accurate and unbiased. But what if, in reality, estimates are highly inaccurate and biased' Then the assumption that cost-benefit analysis is a rational way to improve resource allocation would be a fallacy. Based on the largest dataset of its kind, we test the assumption that cost and benefit estimates of public investments are accurate and unbiased. We find this is not the case with overwhelming statistical significance. We document the extent of cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and forecasting bias in public investments. We further assess whether such inaccuracies seriously distort effective resource allocation, which is found to be the case. We explain our findings in behavioral terms and explore their policy implications. Finally, we conclude that cost-benefit analysis of public investments stands in need of reform and we outline four steps to such reform.
      PubDate: 2021-10-11
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.9
       
  • Economic Activity and the Value of Medical Innovation during a Pandemic

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Mulligan; Casey B.
      Pages: 420 - 440
      Abstract: The “shutdown” economy of April 2020 is compared to a normally functioning economy both in terms of market and nonmarket activities. Three novel methods and data indicate that a full shutdown of “nonessential” activities puts market production about 25 % below normal in the short run. At an annual rate, a full shutdown costs $9 trillion, or about $18,000 per household per quarter. Employment already fell 24 million by early April 2020. These costs indicate, among other things, the value of innovation in both health and general business sectors that can accelerate the time when, and the degree to which, normal activity resumes.
      PubDate: 2021-06-09
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.5
       
  • Methodological Challenges in Estimating the Lifetime Medical Care Cost
           Externality of Obesity

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Schell; Robert C., Just, David R., Levitsky, David A.
      Pages: 441 - 465
      Abstract: There is a great deal of variability in estimates of the lifetime medical care cost externality of obesity, partly due to a lack of transparency in the methodology behind these cost models. Several important factors must be considered in producing the best possible estimate, including age-related weight gain, differential life expectancy, identifiability, and cost model selection. In particular, age-related weight gain represents an important new component to recent cost estimates. Without accounting for age-related weight gain, a study relies on the untenable assumption that people remain the same weight throughout their lives, leading to a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolution and development of the obesity crisis. This study seeks to inform future researchers on the best methods and data available both to estimate age-related weight gain and to accurately and consistently estimate obesity’s lifetime external medical care costs. This should help both to create a more standardized approach to cost estimation as well as encourage more transparency between all parties interested in the question of obesity’s lifetime cost and, ultimately, evaluating the benefits and costs of interventions targeting obesity at various points in the life course.
      PubDate: 2021-07-27
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.6
       
  • Institutional Roles and Goals for Retrospective Regulatory Analysis

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Bennear; Lori S., Wiener, Jonathan B.
      Pages: 466 - 493
      Abstract: Despite repeated calls for retrospective regulatory review by every President since the 1970s, progress on implementing such reviews has been slow. We argue that part of the explanation for the slow progress to date stems from misalignment between the goals of regulatory review and the institutional framework used for the review. We define three distinct goals of regulatory review – the rule relevance goal, the rule improvement goal, and the regulatory learning goal. We then examine the text of the Presidential Executive Orders and major Congressional legislation addressing retrospective review, and document which goals were targeted and which institutions were used to conduct the reviews. We find that the U.S. federal government has almost always sought review of one rule at a time, conducted by the agency that issued or promulgated the rule and that these reviews tend to focus on rule relevance and costs. This institutional framework for retrospective review – one rule, assessed by the promulgating agency, focused on relevance and cost – is only well-suited to a narrow interpretation of the rule improvement goal. We then review alternative institutional structures that could better meet the rule improvement goal and the broader regulatory learning goal across multiple rules and agencies, and we offer recommendations for developing new guidance and institutions to promote multiagency regulatory learning.
      PubDate: 2021-11-26
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.10
       
  • Benefit-Cost Analysis for Climate Action

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Bureau; Dominique, Quinet, Alain, Schubert, Katheline
      Pages: 494 - 517
      Abstract: Although a carbon value has often been integrated in the frameworks established to guide public decision-making, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has played no more than a minor role in the design of climate policies. It is urgently necessary to promote BCA in this area, and there is currently a unique opportunity for doing so. Major countries are designing new packages in order to meet their commitments, as illustrated by the European Green Deal, recent decisions on the part of the Biden Administration, and the creation of a Chinese national carbon market. These constructive processes must be based on BCA. BCA is absolutely necessary in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at a reasonable cost. Indeed, abatement costs across and within sectors, and across and within countries, are extremely heterogeneous, and many of the policy instruments in use (subsidies, feed-in tariffs, technical standards, etc.) overlap inefficiently. The instrumental debate between carbon pricing and other instruments is sterile if it merely remains at the level of stating principles. BCA can help on this point too, by specifying comparisons between alternatives, identifying complementarities, and selecting the most relevant combinations of instruments. Its scope should therefore range from setting benchmarks for carbon pricing to assessing, e.g., green investments or measures to enhance carbon sinks. When applied to decarbonization policies, BCA requires firstly the selection of a carbon value, in order to monetize the climate benefits of investments and policies. However, the whole assessment framework must be updated, including the time horizon, the discount rate, the cobenefits of climate mitigation actions, and the pricing of climate risks. We show that such an updated framework leads to an upward revision in the assessment of the climate benefits of mitigation actions, and that combining the valuation of damages and cost-effectiveness approaches is necessary in order to meet the needs of policy assessment. Finally, there is a need to extend analysis beyond the efficiency criterion in order to deal with other dimensions of climate policies, particularly their distributive impacts. This requires specific analyses, which should be articulated with BCA and carried out at an early stage for a better implementation of climate policies than we have seen to date.
      PubDate: 2021-11-26
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.11
       
  • The Benefits and Costs of Automotive Regulations for Low-Income Americans

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Conrad; Kylie, Graham, John D.
      Pages: 518 - 549
      Abstract: Benefit-cost analyses of regulations address Kaldor-Hicks efficiency but rarely investigate the distribution of benefits and costs as experienced by low-income households. In order to fill this gap, this article assembles the available evidence to determine how regulations of the automobile industry may impact the well-being of low-income Americans. The scope of the investigation includes air pollution, safety and fuel-economy regulations. We find that performing benefit-cost analyses for low-income households is more challenging than commonly understood. Given the difficulties in completing distributional analysis with available information, the authors offer practical suggestions on how to change the federal data systems and the rulemaking process to ensure that information is collected about how future automobile regulations impact the well-being of the poor.
      PubDate: 2021-11-16
      DOI: 10.1017/bca.2021.12
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.235.176.80
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-