Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Risk Based Preferences
AbstractGovernmental guidance for regulatory and benefit-cost analysis is targeted for applied analysts. Existing Federal guidance recommends sensitivity analysis in general without being specific regarding the implicit distributional assumptions of standard benefit-cost analysis. Recommendations for Federal guidance are developed to: 1) better communicate expectations for distributional analysis, 2) develop guidance for descriptive statistics related to distributional issues, and 3) integrate Government published measures of inequality aversion and to evaluate compensation for identified sensitive populations. While such actions have a data collection and analysis cost, they may make the results of regulatory analysis more relevant by investigating both efficiency and equity measures.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by UMBC Department of Economics in its series UMBC Economics Department Working Papers with number 09-117.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: 01 Oct 2009
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: UMBC Department of Economics 1000 Hilltop Circle Baltimore MD 21250, USA
Web page: http://www.umbc.edu/economics
More information through EDIRC
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
- I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kerry Krutilla, 2005. "Using the Kaldor-Hicks tableau format for cost-benefit analysis and policy evaluation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(4), pages 864-875.
- Richard Layard & Guy Mayraz & Stephen J. Nickell, 2007.
"The Marginal Utility of Income,"
SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research
50, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
- Richard Layard & Guy Mayraz & Stephen J Nickell, 2007. "The marginal utility of income," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19745, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Richard Layard & Guy Mayraz & Stephen Nickell, 2007. "The Marginal Utility of Income," CEP Discussion Papers dp0784, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Don Fullerton, 2001.
"A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
- Robert W. Hahn & Patrick M. Dudley, 2007. "How Well Does the U.S. Government Do Benefit-Cost Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 192-211, Summer.
- A. Atkinson, 2008. "More on the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 277-283, September.
- Boadway, Robin W, 1974. "The Welfare Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(336), pages 926-39, December.
- repec:reg:rpubli:299 is not listed on IDEAS
- Graham, John D., 2008. "Saving Lives Through Administrative Law and Economics," Working paper 299, Regulation2point0.
- Farrow, Scott, 1998. "Environmental equity and sustainability: rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 183-188, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christelle Viauroux).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.