IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost Contingency as the Standard Deviation of the Cost Estimate for Cost Engineering


  • Reed E. Hundt

    (Former Chairman, Federal Communications Commission)

  • Gregory L. Rosston

    (Deputy Director, SIEPR)


The United States currently has a communications policy in place that does not state clearly its own goals, yet applies regulations that greatly affect outcomes. A better communications policy would substitute markets for regulation as a way to determine both what is sold and what price is paid while continuing to be conscious of specific market power concerns and obtaining efficiently social benefits. The Administration and Congress should create a bipartisan and independent commission to suggest a complete overhaul of the law and policy for communications, and to do so by mid-2005. In this paper, we make several proposals to improve communications policy:

Suggested Citation

  • Reed E. Hundt & Gregory L. Rosston, 2005. "Cost Contingency as the Standard Deviation of the Cost Estimate for Cost Engineering," Discussion Papers 04-007, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:04-007

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Daron Acemoglu & Jorn-Steffen Pischke, 1999. "The Structure of Wages and Investment in General Training," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 539-572, June.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 1998. "Why Do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 79-119.
    3. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    4. Harley Frazis & Maury Gittleman & Mary Joyce, 2000. "Correlates of Training: An Analysis Using Both Employer and Employee Characteristics," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 53(3), pages 443-462, April.
    5. Feuer, M. & Glick, H. & Desai, A., 1987. "Is firm-sponsored education viable?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 121-136, March.
    6. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2001. "How To Compete: The Impact Of Workplace Practices And Information Technology On Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 434-445, August.
    7. Garcia, Federico & Arkes, Jeremy & Trost, Robert, 2002. "Does employer-financed general training pay? Evidence from the US Navy," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 19-27, February.
    8. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    9. Kenny, Lawrence W, et al, 1979. "Returns to College Education: An Investigation of Self-Selection Bias Based on the Project Talent Data," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 20(3), pages 775-789, October.
    10. Lisa M. Lynch & Sandra E. Black, 1998. "Beyond the Incidence of Employer-Provided Training," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 52(1), pages 64-81, October.
    11. Acemoglu, Daron & Pischke, Jorn-Steffen, 1999. "Beyond Becker: Training in Imperfect Labour Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 112-142, February.
    12. Cappelli, Peter, 2004. "Why do employers pay for college?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1-2), pages 213-241.
    13. Mark A. Loewenstein & James R. Spletzer, 1999. "General and Specific Training: Evidence and Implications," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(4), pages 710-733.
    14. Pencavel, John H, 1972. "Wages, Specific Training, and Labor Turnover in US Manufacturing Industries," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 13(1), pages 53-64, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Geoffrey Rothwell, 2005. "Can the Modular Helium Reactor Compete in the Hydrogen Economy," Discussion Papers 05-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.


    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:sip:dpaper:04-007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anne Shor). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.