IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v9y2018i02p285-304_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Federal Environmental Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Morgenstern, Richard

Abstract

Retrospective, or ex post, analysis of U.S. federal regulation aims to rigorously document regulatory outcomes using cost, benefit, and distributional metrics. This paper presents nine new case studies involving a total of 34 comparisons of ex ante and ex post estimates from a diverse group of environmentally oriented rules. Despite the potential for selection bias and other limitations of the case study approach, the results suggest a slight tendency to overestimate both costs and benefits (or effectiveness) of regulation. This paper considers various analytic issues relevant to developing credible baselines for comparison, and offers policy lessons regarding the design of emissions trading programs along with approaches for incorporating uncertainty into both preregulatory studies and policy designs. Recommendations to facilitate and support future retrospective analyses are also presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgenstern, Richard, 2018. "Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Federal Environmental Regulation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 285-304, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:9:y:2018:i:02:p:285-304_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588817000173/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. Žiga Kotnik & Maja Klun & Renata Slabe-Erker, 2020. "Identification of the Factors That Affect the Environmental Administrative Burden for Businesses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-15, August.

    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:9:y:2018:i:02:p:285-304_00. 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.