IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mul/jhpfyn/doi10.1434-123y2001i2p223-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Metodologie di valutazione dell'impatto della regolamentazione: il ruolo dell'analisi costi-benefici

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra Arcuri
  • Roger Van Den Bergh

Abstract

The use of Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in several OECD countries is rapidly gaining relevance. Following this trend, Italy has recently adopted some provisions pointing in the direction of an appraisal of administrative regulations in terms of their benefits and costs. After a brief survey of the Italian scenario, the Authors present a comparative overview of past and recent practice for carrying out RIAS in United States, United Kingdom and briefly in some other Northern European countries. The aim of the paper is to open a debate on the methodologies for regulatory appraisal. The methodology of benefit-cost analysis of regulation, as one of the possible tools for the appraisal of regulatory proposals, is then discussed in some details. By showing some of the strengths and pitfalls of such technique, the Authors emphasize that the role of benefit-cost analysis should be to provide information relevant to the decision, not to provide the decision. Hence, some tentative conclusions over the modalities of using benefit-cost analysis are drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Arcuri & Roger Van Den Bergh, 2001. "Metodologie di valutazione dell'impatto della regolamentazione: il ruolo dell'analisi costi-benefici," Mercato Concorrenza Regole, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 2, pages 223-256.
  • Handle: RePEc:mul:jhpfyn:doi:10.1434/123:y:2001:i:2:p:223-256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rivisteweb.it/download/article/10.1434/123
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1434/123
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:mul:jhpfyn:doi:10.1434/123:y:2001:i:2:p:223-256. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rivisteweb.it/ .

    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.