IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v16y2025is2p276-283_9.html

Specifying the Baseline in Benefit–Cost Analysis: Comments on U.S. Draft Circular A4

Author

Listed:
  • Whittington, Dale

Abstract

This article includes my 4 June 2023, comments on the specification of the baseline in Regulatory Impact Analyses that were submitted in response to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) request for comments on its draft revisions to Circular A4, “Regulatory Analysis.” This article also includes supplemental remarks on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA’s) Revisions to Circular A4 in Response to Public Comments. In my supplemental remarks, I clarify two regulatory situations that I believe OIRA is trying to address in its baseline guidance. I then make three points. First, I argue that the term “dynamic baseline” is preferred to “analytic baseline” because it better conveys the key point that the baseline is a forecast of future conditions. Second, I believe OIRA’s final baseline guidance still leaves agencies with too much discretion to make their own assumptions about such basic parameters in the construction of a dynamic baseline as population and economic growth, technological innovation, and climate change. Third, I argue that the use of multiple dynamic baselines should be standard practice because it makes the baseline assumptions more transparent and thus to some extent mitigates the risk of bias that can arise from an analyst’s strategic selection of a single baseline.

Suggested Citation

  • Whittington, Dale, 2025. "Specifying the Baseline in Benefit–Cost Analysis: Comments on U.S. Draft Circular A4," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(S2), pages 276-283, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:16:y:2025:i:s2:p:276-283_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588825100304/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dale Whittington, 2026. "Designing a national benefit–cost analysis system," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(1), pages 43-76, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:16:y:2025:i:s2:p:276-283_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.